tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post115069249483123245..comments2024-03-15T04:02:42.341-04:00Comments on CrimLaw: Letter to the EditorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-1150831857545984662006-06-20T15:30:00.000-04:002006-06-20T15:30:00.000-04:00You know, I never see the newspapers inferring tha...You know, I never see the newspapers inferring that a judge has failed to do his job when he ignores the guidelines by sentencing above them - something I see far more often then sentencing below them. I never read the paper complaining forcefully that jurors are purposefully kept ignorant of the guidelines so that they will sentence innappropriately. To read complaints in a rare case when the judge has departed downward is hypocritical.<BR/><BR/>This program is much like a drug court program (everything except the weekly trip to see the judge). These programs have a proven track record.<A HREF="http://www.utcourts.gov/drugcourts/" REL="nofollow">A Utah study showed that 7% of those who completed a drug court would re-offend while 45% of those who didn't take the program would re-offend.</A><BR/><BR/>Why are judges cast in this "counseling" role? Well, they're not. They only require the convict to take counseling - they are the punishment for failure. However, I guess this could be seen as splitting hairs. Why do they assign people to these programs?<BR/><BR/>Two reasons: First, they are trying to keep the convict from turning into something worse by "fixing" him. If he has a $20 a day coke habit today which he is supporting by shoplifting it's better to try to fix him at that point rather than having him come in constant contact with the system until he's a heroin addict robbing quick-marts at gun point or a homeless guy mugging some yuppie so he can get the money for his fix.<BR/><BR/>Second, it saves money. Don't kid yourself, our General Assembly isn't looking at long term recidivism rates all that closely. Arresting this guy 20 times in the next 20 years is not a big concern to them (the public safety angle is a little esoteric). However, if he and 38% of others of his ilk are fixed and doesn't come back again the government will save all sorts of money. And money is something the legislature understands very well.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think the system worked fairly well when judges could order both punishment and treatment programs. Of course, that also cost money and the General Assembly cut that option off.Ken Lammershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15646250142814585354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-1150811041257818562006-06-20T09:44:00.000-04:002006-06-20T09:44:00.000-04:00This sad case points out vividly the fallacy of be...This sad case points out vividly the fallacy of believing the courts should act as counselling brokers instead of dispensers of justice.<BR/><BR/>If the judge had been more concerned for the safety of the community and for the <B><I>recommendation of the guidelines</B></I>, tragedy would have been avoided.<BR/><BR/>Whoever has been involved in the "system" knows that these programs have a very high failure rate. Weighed against the concerns of public safety and the good old-fashioned notion of punishment, one must wonder why our judges continue trying to be therapists instead of the hand of justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-1150803786788660172006-06-20T07:43:00.000-04:002006-06-20T07:43:00.000-04:001) The man was already serving a year. Assuming h...1) The man was already serving a year. Assuming he couldn't get drugs inside, that's plenty of time to dry out.<BR/><BR/>2) Sadly, from what I can tell, there's nothing here that distinguishes this man's use of drugs from that a great number of people who come to court. In fact, a marijuana habit with intermitent cocaine use would indicate that intervention is appropriate before cocaine becomes the primary use drug or changes into even more serious drugs like heoin.<BR/><BR/>3) Judges have been told by the General Assembly that jail or drug treatment programs are an either-or proposition. Prior to last July there were any number of judges who would sentence defendants to 12 months in jail to be followed by Detention and Diversion programs (lock-in drug treatment run by probation). Last July the General Assembly forbade judges to do this. By implication, the GA was telling judges not to do this with any program. A judge is supposed to apply the law in the manner which the GA tells him to apply it. Judge Rockwell did.<BR/><BR/>4) Yes, Mukuria is a multiple felon. These are the people we deal with in court. Would earlier intervention have been better? Most certainly. It would have been wonderful if Mukuria had been ordered into treatment before his drug problems had taken him over the line from misdemeanors to felonies. However, there isn't really enough incentive (probable punishment) to put that choice upon defendants until they commit a felony. There usually isn't enough to incentive to put that choice upon defendants even when they commit their first felony and are facing the typical six months or less. I can tell you that the Word passed around the jail from inmate to inmate is not to take the program the judge assigned Mukuria because it is easier to do time than to live under this program for a year.Ken Lammershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15646250142814585354noreply@blogger.com