Probably yes. While the primary limits of $300,000 have remained the same for nearly three decades, the cost of claims has increased over this period, as has the frequency of claims that exceed mandatory limits. Claims have become more complex and the value of cases handled by lawyers has increased. Certain areas of law today represent a much higher risk of excessive claims. In addition to assessing the risk exposure of your firm`s legal work, consider whether your personal assets could be at risk if you have a large claim. Many lawyers believe that the mandatory sum of $300,000 does not provide sufficient protection. When deciding whether excess coverage is appropriate for your law firm, ask yourself the following questions: Do your current malpractice coverage limits match the risk of exposure in your law firm? Are your personal assets protected if you are overwhelmed? If your answer to any of these questions is “no,” “maybe,” or “I`m not sure,” make insuring excess coverage for your business a priority. PLF Excess staff can help you assess your company`s risk exposure and guide you through the PLF excess coverage application process. Much of the American legal system is based on a persistent set of myths about who criminals are and how they should be treated. This essay is the first in the Brennan Center series to examine the excessive sentences that have defined the American criminal justice system. The 40-year growth in incarceration rates since the early 1970s, focused solely on prisoners, has been linked to changes in penal policy, particularly with the widespread introduction of mandatory minimum sentences, often for drug-related offences. And then by imposing very long prison sentences, especially for those who have been convicted of violence and who have a long criminal history.
The criminal justice system is hampered by excessive use of excessive sentences. Beginning in Washington in 1993, more than half of the states and the federal government enacted so-called “three strikes” laws within a decade.11 Michael Vitiello, “Three Strikes Laws: A Real or Imagined Deterrent to Crime?,” ABA Journal (April 1, 2002). Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Third Edition, Volume II GAO-06-382SP, 1. February 2006 In calculating fines, courts must take into account the defendant`s financial resources and the burden of the fine, as in United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 (1947). In that case, the court found that a fine of $3,500,000 imposed on a union was excessive, but a fine of $700,000 was not. If punishment is not justice in such a world, what is? Here, the answer lies in reconciling the jurisprudence of individual guilt with the promotion of human capacities. If the problems of crime, disorder and idleness are characteristic of the social conditions of poverty, then justice is found by reducing these social conditions rather than punishing those who live there. Incarceration of people for drugs does not reduce drug use or overdose deaths.8 Pew, “More Inprisonment Does Not Reduce State Drug Problems,” March 8, 2018. Mandatory minimum sentences for drug and other offenders “have little or no deterrent effect.” 9 National Research Council, “The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences,” Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2014, p.
347. At the same time, reducing prison sentences for drug-related offenders does not result in more drug-related offences.10 Pew Trusts, “More Inprisonment Does Not Reduce State Drug Problems” (March 8, 2018). The heads of agencies and the mayor of the District of Columbia must provide the Comptroller General of the United States with a copy of the Antideficiency Act reports when they are submitted to the President and Congress. Drug abuse is not a criminal justice issue. It is a health problem that should be treated by medical professionals. We advocate for low-level incarceration for drug-related offenders and a health-based approach that provides treatment to reduce addiction and advances prevention efforts for those at high risk for substance use disorders. Nearly half of federal prison inmates are incarcerated for a drug offense4 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Offences,” October 5, 2019. Under Alabama`s Customary Offenders Act, hundreds of people have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for minor, nonviolent crimes such as stealing a bicycle.13 EJI, “EJI Wins Relief for Persons Sentenced to Died in Prison for Nonviolent Crimes” (September 13, 2007). For more information on the requirements of the Antideficiency Act, see Transmission of Antideficiency Act Reports to the Comptroller General of the United States B-304335, March 8, 2005. Mandatory sentencing has resulted in cruel and severe consequences, particularly for children, people with mental illness, and victims of violence and abuse. EJI fights to keep people out of prison who pose no threat to public safety and advocates for treatment, not imprisonment, for low-intensity drug and other crimes.
The average length of incarceration for federal drug offenses increased by 153% between 1988 and 20125 Pew Trusts, “More Inprisonment Does Not Reduce State Drug Problems” (March 8, 2018). This Act prohibits federal organizations from committing or spending federal funds at the outset or beyond an allocation of funds and from accepting voluntary services. PLF provides Oregon law firms with overcoverage on an optional underwriting basis. Coverage limits are available up to $9.7 million. The excess coverage plan follows the main PLF coverage plan, with a few differences. The PLF surplus program is 100% reinsured with first-class reinsurers. New businesses applying can apply for coverage of up to $1.7 million. Once a company maintains coverage of $1.7 million (with the PLF or another carrier) for a full calendar year, the company can apply for coverage of up to $4.7 million. A company must have $4.7 million in excess coverage (from PLF or another airline) for two full years before applying for $9.7 million in coverage. Excess coverage is based on damage, with defense costs included within the limits of coverage. A copy of the 2022 Excess Claims Plan is available here.
Jeremy Travis is Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice at Arnold Ventures. Bruce Western is Professor of Sociology at Columbia University and Co-Director of the Columbia Justice Lab. You are co-founder of the Square One project at the Columbia Justice Lab. The great injustice of contemporary criminal justice sentencing was that it attributed an abundance of moral capacity to those who often had to make the fewest decisions because of economic, demographic and social disadvantage. In this social world, steeped in racism, extreme poverty and the associated compulsions to act, the moral freedom of choice that governs punishment is unevenly distributed among the population and is least widespread among the most disadvantaged. But the harsh punishments were, at best, indifferent to racism and poverty. In this world of punitive excesses, poverty, trauma and illness were seen as bad choices by the wrong people, who were then punished by police, courts and prisons. The past and present of the criminal justice system are closely linked to its use as a tool against people of colour. Punishment not only describes what criminal justice institutions do, but also signifies a relationship between the state and its citizens. We define punishment as the infliction of human suffering under the guise of the law. The criminal sanction describes a coercive relationship between an authority and persons under its jurisdiction.