On January 24, 2011, a white male in his twenties, a musician in a band, was walking home from his drummer’s house on Sacramento Avenue (in West Sacramento) at 10:30 pm on a Monday night. He was wearing headphones when he was approached by a person in a Michael Jordan jersey, who asked where he was from.
He would toss them his wallet and phone. He described himself as punched and hit in the head over 30 times.
As soon as the attack happened he managed to flag down a police officer, who was responding to a call about a group of 5-6 Hispanic kids drinking. As the officer arrived, he saw two kids trying to jump the fence, spotted another walking toward him, and two others were across the street.
It seemed like an open and shut case, you have a guy attacked, he identifies two of the attackers right away. Another is identified by a distinctive design on the back of a pair of pants, and another, Michael Ramirez, the only adult in the group, by his pair of boots.
Mr. Ramirez told the officer he was trying to help the victim, but the victim said, no way, you were kicking me on the ground.
The five defendants, four of whom were minors and will not be identified by name in this article, were held in custody for ten months as they awaited trial. They were held on charges of robbery, assault with the intent to do great bodily injury, and one of the kids was charged with receiving stolen property. They were all charged with gang enhancements.
It was the gang enhancements that allowed the kids to be direct-filed as adults. Without the enhancements, they could have pled and served their time at juvenile hall. However, the DA’s office did not want to drop the gang charges and, as a result, three of the defendants, including Mr. Ramirez, were outright acquitted. A fourth was found guilty of robbery and remanded to juvenile court, and the fifth, the kid who was found with the victim’s phone on his person, was found guilty of receiving stolen property and also remanded to juvenile court.
The jury cleared all defendants on the gang charges, both the stand-alone Penal Code section 186.22(a) and the sections for gang enhancements. As one of the defense attorneys, Rod Beede, whose client was among those acquitted, noted in his opening statement, the gang charges were a centerpiece to this case. He noted that, in the opening statement, Deputy DA Rob Trudgen spoke about the crime itself for five minutes and the rest was about the Broderick Boys.
Indeed, we would learn during the course of the trial that the West Sacramento Police did not initially see this as a gang crime until Supervising Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton contacted Officer Dugans, who served as the gang expert in this case, and asked him to investigate this as a gang crime.
During the preliminary hearing, Judge Stephen Mock held over the gang charges simply on the statement from one of the defendants who had asked the victim where he was from, which both the prosecution and Judge Mock determined to be gang-related. However, the gang ties of most of the defendants were very thin, as we shall see shortly.
There were also problems with the victim’s testimony. For instance, he testified that Mr. Ramirez, whom he said was kicking him, wore tan boots. In fact, he never saw Mr. Ramirez’s face but rather identified him by the boots. The problem is that Mr. Ramirez was not wearing tan boots.
Another problem is that, while the victim testified he was punched and kicked 30 times, that number seems impossible in the face of a number of factors. First, the victim had a single injury, a cut near his eye which he said occurred as he was trying to drop to the ground to protect himself from the assault.
He had no injuries or bruises to any other part of his body. His ribs were not bruised, despite claims he was kicked there. His hands were not bruised or scratched, despite his claims he held them over his head to shield the blows.
Moreover, no injuries or blood were found on the defendants’ hands or bodies. There is no doubt that the victim was assaulted, but the problem of by whom and how much was impossible for the jury to determine.
Where this case really fell apart was poor eyewitness identification and tactical errors by the West Sacramento Police Department, who utilized the less reliable show-up identification technique, without proper safeguards, rather than having some line-ups for the victim to pick out the suspects.
To make their case, the defense brought in one of the preeminent experts on human memory and witness identification, Dr. Jeffery Loftus from the University of Washington in Seattle.
His presentation will likely warrant its own article at some point in time, but for the purposes of understanding the outcome of this case, he testified that memory is not like a video which records information in a linear fashion. Instead, we take in bits and pieces of information, and we add information to the memories over time.
We often will rely on extraneous post-event information, which helps our minds to create a coherent story recollection of past events rather than fragmented information.
While that process helps to create a more coherent story, at the same time, it may make it a less accurate story if the post-event information is based on false premises.
Dr. Loftus would go on to talk about the problems of eyewitness identification and the fact that in 75 to 80% of cases where DNA evidence exonerated the individual, one of the causes of the conviction was false or faulty eyewitness identification. While the number of such exonerations is very low, it remains that DNA is only available in a small percentage of cases.
The other important information was the problem of dark lighting conditions for identifying subjects. The problem, as Dr. Loftus would testify, is that under low-lighting conditions the human eye sees a much lower resolution of image, which tends to be black and white rather than full color.
There is also the problem of attention – in order to form a valid memory, the individual must be paying sufficient attention to remember critical information. There is often no reason to pay attention to critical details and there is also the problem of competing attention, when many things are occurring simultaneously.
Finally, Dr. Loftus testified that confidence of an accurate identification alone should be treated skeptically. The confidence could be based on post-event information, and therefore create a false confidence.
The problem of poor eyewitness identification comes into play here because, when the victim was attacked, there was very little light, and the attack happened very quickly. He also quickly hit the ground and, while he testified he tried to find identifying marks, it was difficult to do so from his vantage point.
In order to counter these problems, Deputy DA Trudgen made a totality-of-the-circumstances argument. The police had a report of youths drinking, they found fresh beer cans near the scene, and caught five people near the scene, all of whom had connections to each other.
He argued, contrary to the defense contention, that there were not many people, particularly young people, out and about at this time of day in this location.
He would break down the evidence against each of the defendants in his closing statement, arguing that Mr. Ramirez was in sight of the officer when he arrived, lied that he had tried to help the victim and was identified by the victim as being one of the assailants.
The second defendant, who was the kid in the Michael Jordan jersey, was one of the kids trying to jump the fence and he was convicted of the robbery.
A third defendant was running from the scene. He was tracked down by an officer and went to the ground before being commanded by the officer to do so.
A fourth defendant was found jumping the fence, he was intoxicated, he possessed the phone, and was the kid who was convicted of receiving stolen property.
The fifth kid was not identified by face, but was instructed to turn around where he was identified by what was described as an unusual design on the back of his jeans. He would be acquitted, however.
The problem that the prosecution faced was that the defendants were identified by a show-up technique. Basically, for the two guys not directly caught at the scene of the crime, the victim was driven to see a suspect. Now, he was read a written protocol that instructs him that, just because these guys are being shown to him does not mean they had anything to do with the crime, and that it was just as important to rule out innocent people as it was to catch the perpetrators.
Nevertheless, the defense seems to have been successful in arguing that the very fact that these guys were caught and shown to him introduced bias. They argued that a six-pack line-up, where he would have to identify the individuals out of a group of people, would have been more effective.
The West Sacramento Police and the prosecutor argued that would be time-consuming and unnecessary. However, the defense would be able to counter that they failed to take the recommended safeguards about asking the victim to come up with identifying features prior to actual identification. A number of these kids had very distinctive hair, for instance, but that was never mentioned pre-identification. And it did not help that, even in trial, the victim could only identify two of the defendants.
In short, the jury only convicted the two people who could unmistakably be linked to the crime. They were the guy with the Michael Jordan jersey, which was very distinctive, who was found immediately jumping the fence, and the other guy, jumping the fence, who had the stolen property on him.
Up until this point, we would argue that the defense did a very good job of bringing in the expert witness and exploiting the problems in the prosecution’s case. But the clear problem here is that the West Sacramento Police Department’s investigators did a poor job of preserving the victim’s identification.
Had they been able to create a six-pack line-up for the victim to verify his identification of the suspects that would have bolstered their case. It would have bolstered their case, as well, had they had the victim describe key features such as size and hair style, and even the boots and the pants-design, prior to identification.
As the defense would argue, the mere fact that the victim claimed to have recognized the boots or the pants design after the fact could merely be post-event information supplementing his memory. Or, at least that explanation could not be ruled out.
Where the DA probably deserves criticism is the fact that there could have been plea agreements with the four juveniles, pre-trial. In fact, in open court at a pre-trial hearing Judge Mock expressed strong disappointment that they could not reach a settlement, and one of the key reasons was the insistence of the DA on the gang charges.
The person with the strongest evidence of gang ties was the only adult, Mr. Ramirez, the only one of the five with tattoos that might be gang-related. Mr. Ramirez had a “916” tattoo and four dots.
The DA presented no evidence of past active gang involvement. The evidence was limited to photos found on a computer, of the kids posing with colors and gang signs. But the photos all looked to have been taken on the same day, at a party. Were they gang members or kids posing and trying to act like gang members?
One of the kids apparently had a red hat and pants with red trim on them in his clothing at home. He was not even wearing this on the night in question. They found a CD in his home, that they could not tie to him directly, with a red “14” on it and a letter, that was not written by or to him, that might show gang ties.
As Mr. Beede would argue in his closing, is that evidence of criminal street gang activity? He argued, “Where are you from?” is hardly a gang challenge, as the DA and police were trying to make it out to be.
In his opening, he made the point that these gang are supposedly so dangerous because they intimidate the community. And yet the victim here cooperated with authority for nearly a year. There is no evidence that he is afraid of these kids.
There is no Godfather figure here, and the gang expert would testify the gangs are developing with less and less structure.
In the end, there was little evidence that this was the gang attack that the police and DA were portraying it, there was limited evidence that the kids had gang ties, and no evidence that any of them were actually active members.
The gang case thus collapsed under its own weight, and the gamble that the DA took that they could get the convictions on the other charges in trial failed. Had this been properly charged or pled for what it was – a bunch of drunk teenagers who likely jumped a man and stole his wallet – it probably would have ended up very differently.
But because the DA specifically intervened in this case and insisted it remain a gang case, it fell apart due to weak evidence and poor investigative techniques.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A case is only as good as the persons involved in it. In this situation, the victim was assaulted in the dark, by a number of young thugs, which led to the victim’s understandable confusion. Because these young thugs took full advantage of the situation, several were able to weasel out of culpability. End of story as far as I am concerned…
[quote]In short, the jury only convicted the two people who could unmistakably be linked to the crime. They were the guy with the Michael Jordan jersey, which was very distinctive, who was found immediately jumping the fence, and the other guy, jumping the fence, who had the stolen property on him.[/quote]
This is it in a nutshell… the case is only as good as the evidence…
If that’s the end of your story, then you’re really missing the story here. There were decisions made that contributed to this result. Moreover, they aren’t thugs, they are kids. They are kids who got drunk and did something bad, probably not as bad as what the DA said, but bad enough. We have a system that is designed to deal with kids like these, but the DA decided to try to get more and try them as adults. This case could have settled far more equitably had they simply remembered that and acted accordingly from the start.
[quote]There were decisions made that contributed to this result. Moreover, they aren’t thugs, they are kids. They are kids who got drunk and did something bad, [/quote]
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
[quote]Definition of THUG
: a brutal ruffian or assassin : gangster, tough
— thug·gery noun
— thug·gish adjective
See thug defined for English-language learners »
See thug defined for kids »
Examples of THUG
He was beaten and robbed by street thugs.[/quote]
I stand by my statement…
Just as an aside, perhaps I have a different viewpoint on thuggery by young juvenile delinquents, bc my son was the victim of such violence. Did you hear about the recent Craigslist murderer – a 16 year old boy? Thugs can be juveniles…
I understand, but you have little basis to describe these juveniles as thugs. But I am more concerned about the overplaying the gang card once again, when there was no evidence that they were active members of the criminal street gang and the fact that they kept these kids in custody for nearly eleven months. I think that risks future criminal activity.
“In his opening, he made the point that these gang are supposedly so dangerous because they intimidate the community. And yet the victim here cooperated with authority for nearly a year. There is no evidence that he is afraid of these kids.”
That is certainly an effect gangs can have in a community, but it’s hardly the only requirement for one to be found present in the community or one to be found a member of a gang. Nevertheless, neither a victim’s cooperation with law enforcement and the prosecution nor the absence of intimidation necessarily lessens the degree to which the defendant’s were affiliated with a gang or involved in gang activity.
Any number of things could explain the victim’s willingness to cooperate with authorities and his cooperation could be directly related to the authorities assurance that he would be protected from said gang, thus his lack of fear. It could be that the fact that the defendants have been in custody during the entire process has led to the victim’s lack of fear, too.
ERM,
“Did you hear about the recent Craigslist murderer – a 16 year old boy? Thugs can be juveniles…”
You’re not referring to the “Craigslist Killer,” a medical student at the time, are you?
[i]”Moreover, they aren’t thugs, they are kids. They are kids who got drunk and did something bad, probably not as bad as what the DA said, but bad enough.”[/i]
David, supporting your bleeding heart for criminals would result in more victims’ blood being spilled. I don’t care how young these boys are and how much they had to drink. Any person demonstrating that type of behavior is a danger to society and should be handed severe punishment. We should have zero tolerance for gang violence of any type.
What if this had been a group of kids punching and kicking a gay young man?
Let me know where people need to go to qualify for victim status where they are entitled to justice, because I thought being robbed, punched and kicked by a gang of thugs was already a reasonable qualification.
Jeff: I’m not following you here. I said “bad enough.” The problem is that they were overcharged here, had it not been for Mock’s instance that asking where the guy was from meant it could be a gang crime, those charges would have been dropped at prelim. There was not evidence that this was a gang crime and minimal evidence that they might have been gang members.
So toss that out, you are left with a bunch of kids who jumped a guy and stole his stuff, except he had exactly one injury, so how is it that give guys are kicking a guy and he has a cut on his eye and no other injuries.
They should have been charged as juveniles from the start and the DA should have taken the plea.
Maybe I am really missing something here, but whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty” ?
Have we somehow gotten to the point where that doesn’t matter to us anymore?
Well Medwoman, this is one of the few cases that I have covered where I think the jury took that seriously and really the only two charges they sustained were proven beyond any doubt. We simply did not know who hit the victim. We know that the guy with the MJ jersey was involved in the robbery, and we know that the guy with the phone received stolen property.
there were questions about the identifications, the jury did not buy into the collective guilt or the gang guilt theories. In my two years of experience this was an unusual case.
I don’t like labels such as thug, I think these are kids who are in need of help that is what the juvenile system is supposed to provide but doesn’t.
I have no idea what Jeff is getting at with his point about protected classes, I think that is a misplaced point in this case.
David, I was responding to your comment that they “are kids that just did something bad”. Kids just doing something bad might vandalize the school, or spray graffiti, or shoplift. Ganging up to physically attack, injure and rob someone is not just doing something bad. It is thuggery. It demonstrates a significant deficiency in moral compass. Why not graduate to using a knife or a gun? Based on the story, these kid-thugs might have just been lucky that the cop showed up when he did, otherwise the victim may have been more seriously hurt.
I’m not familiar enough with the gang enhancement law to debate if it was relevant here. I was just responding to that specific piece of your post.
[i][quote]”The problem is that Mr. Ramirez was not wearing tan boots.”[/quote][/i]If not tan boots, what was he wearing? How close was the victim’s description? Are you claiming that Mr. Ramirez wasn’t doing the kicking? Are you claiming that the victim is lying about what the attacker did to him even though there “was no doubt that the victim was assaulted”?
So, here we are again trying to figure out why calling these thugs, gangsters, punks, hoodlums, whatevers (albeit young ones) gang associates or members offends you so much that you can ignore the magnitude of their violent crimes. “Just a bunch of kids getting a little drunk and horsing around without even really hurting the so-called victim” really ignores the evidence in your own story. People end up dead as the result of roaming gangs challenging someone in their territory, attacking them and robbing them.
You constantly claim the DA overcharges, yet your reports constantly understate the seriousness of the acts involved and the weight of the evidence against the defendants. “[i][quote]In short, the jury only convicted the two people who could unmistakably be linked to the crime.”[/quote][/i]In short, that’s good enough for me. If the prosecution couldn’t prove anything else beyond reasonable doubt, that’s exactly what one should hope the jury would do.
In fact, how would you feel about now if you’d been successful in your pleadings to have the defendants and the DA agree to plea bargains for these folks and no trials?! Think about it: the three exonerated defendants would be locked up if you’d had your away! Oops, sorry, maybe this plea bargaining is the panacea you’ve though it was for so long. In any case, your problem (as usual) is with the laws. Maybe you could work on getting it changed if you don’t like it.
Some of your reported facts cry out for more information First, you state the victim was so unharmed that he’s not to be believed. Did the prosecution do nothing to attempt to show that he was, in fact, injured in any way? Second, what’s the scoop on these kids being locked up for nearly a year. That seems like the story (and the only miscarriage involved) here. Third, what do you have to report about the foot ware involved in the kicking? What did the jury hear about that item that you didn’t share with us?
[quote]”(Bedde) made the point that these gang are supposedly so dangerous because they intimidate the community. And yet the victim here cooperated with authority for nearly a year. There is no evidence that he is afraid of these kids.”[/quote]This is just nonsense. I understand that defense attorneys toss everything out there, hoping something will stick. But, you aren’t seriously suggesting your readers should give the tiniest weight to such a silly contention, are you David?
Jeff: My comment was very specific to this case. There are degrees of bad. Involving weapons raises the stakes and it also raises the penalties involved.
“If not tan boots, what was he wearing? How close was the victim’s description?”
He was wearing boots but far enough from the victim’s description that the jury was unwilling to convict Ramirez based simply on the victim’s description.
“Are you claiming that Mr. Ramirez wasn’t doing the kicking?”
I wasn’t there. The jury was not convinced that he was beyond a reasonable doubt. And no, I don’t believe that the victim was lying, but because the scene and identification process was contaminated, I’m unsure about his recollections.
“So, here we are again trying to figure out why calling these thugs, gangsters, punks, hoodlums, whatevers (albeit young ones) gang associates or members offends you so much that you can ignore the magnitude of their violent crimes.”
I simply believe we need to get away from such labels and start dealing with people who commit crimes in ways that perhaps we can help them get back onto the right path. These kids are not lost causes just yet and labeling them as thugs doesn’t add much descriptive value.
“People end up dead as the result of roaming gangs challenging someone in their territory, attacking them and robbing them.”
That’s true, but people did not end up dead in this case.
“You constantly claim the DA overcharges, yet your reports constantly understate the seriousness of the acts involved and the weight of the evidence against the defendants.”
I took issue with two points that the DA charged – that they were gang members violating two portions of the 186 penal code and that they inflicted GBI on the victim. Clearly if he were hit 30 times as he claimed (and again I think he was scared and overly reported the assault), he would have had evidence of the blows. He had no bruises or cuts anywhere but on his eye.
“In short, that’s good enough for me. If the prosecution couldn’t prove anything else beyond reasonable doubt, that’s exactly what one should hope the jury would do. “
We agree on this point.
“In fact, how would you feel about now if you’d been successful in your pleadings to have the defendants and the DA agree to plea bargains for these folks and no trials?! Think about it: the three exonerated defendants would be locked up if you’d had your away! Oops, sorry, maybe this plea bargaining is the panacea you’ve though it was for so long. In any case, your problem (as usual) is with the laws. Maybe you could work on getting it changed if you don’t like it.”
I’m not following you. My point here is that the DA took a gamble that they could get the gang charges and ended up with some of the defendants walking completely when they all would have plead (except the adult) to the predicate offenses. My reason for raising this point is to question the techniques of the DA’s office not only as overcharging as an unfairness to the defendants but as self-defeating to their own cause in this case.
“Some of your reported facts cry out for more information “
While that’s fair, you have to realize as it stands, this article is nearly 2000 words long.
“First, you state the victim was so unharmed that he’s not to be believed. Did the prosecution do nothing to attempt to show that he was, in fact, injured in any way? “
They showed a photo of his face, no body photos and on the stand he admitted no other injuries, bruises, or cuts despite going to the ground and being kicked in the ribs and hit in the head with his hands covering him up. (I think I reported on much of this).
“First, you state the victim was so unharmed that he’s not to be believed. Did the prosecution do nothing to attempt to show that he was, in fact, injured in any way?”
They were in custody from January 24 until this week when three will be released and two will be remanded to juvenile hall. There is probably an interesting story on direct filing laws as well.
“Third, what do you have to report about the foot ware involved in the kicking? What did the jury hear about that item that you didn’t share with us? “
That’s why the boots were important. Other than the boots, the victim was unable to describe the rest of the foot ware. Again, not one of the defendants were convicted of the assault, so obviously the jury was unconvinced about the linkage between foot ware and assault. That’s all I can remember from that. Understand that this trial lasted nearly three weeks.
I agree with ERM and Jeff Boone that the youths were engaged in thuggery and the punishment should be harsh (of course with sufficient evidence, which I guess was demonstrated for 2 of the perps).
David, if you say that society has failed these youths, I would say that it is equally true that these youths have failed society, and have disgraced themselves. By attributing bad behavour to environmental factors alone, you are bringing people down to the level of beasts, and negating the highest nature of man which includes free will and responsible behavour–such an attitude leads the world of men to be a giant zoo rather than a civilization of honorable beings.
jimt – Exactly. well said.
[quote]”They were in custody from January 24 until this week when three will be released and two will be remanded to juvenile hall. There is probably an interesting story on direct filing laws as well.”[/quote]If I understand what you’re saying, I think this the real tragedy of this case and how justice proceeded. If these minors (being charged as adults) were kept in Yolo County Jail for nearly a year while awaiting trial, that stinks even if they had ended up being found guilty. Without knowing what side caused the trial date, it seems to have met the “speedy trial” requirements.
Why wouldn’t bail have been set and paid to get them out of incarceration? The charged crimes don’t seem to be so serious. Is it possible they have some criminal history that you didn’t mention?[quote][i]”It was the gang enhancements that allowed the kids to be direct-filed as adults….There is probably an interesting story on direct filing laws as well.”[/i][/quote]No doubt about it. I’d say it’s much more interesting that this story–which requires a willing suspension of disbelief on your part and ours to make it more interesting than it is irritating. (This also assumes no prior history, usually the justification for direct filing–not “do you live here” statements that might suggest the present case was gang-related.)
Before too many words are spent picking at the prosecution case and strategy, we should acknowledge that those found “not guilty” probably were as much “guilty participants” in the terrible attack as their convicted cohorts. If you buy their guilty-but-exonerated status, why waste time on how the witnesses failed in court? I don’t get it.
[quote]You’re not referring to the “Craigslist Killer,” a medical student at the time, are you?[/quote]
No, this is just within the last few days. A 16 year old lured people on Craigslist out to a farm, having advertised jobs as farmhands. Looks like this 16 year old THUG killed his victims. He had a cohort, some adult with a long criminal record…
jimt:
“David, if you say that society has failed these youths, I would say that it is equally true that these youths have failed society, and have disgraced themselves. By attributing bad behavour to environmental factors alone, you are bringing people down to the level of beasts, and negating the highest nature of man which includes free will and responsible behavour–such an attitude leads the world of men to be a giant zoo rather than a civilization of honorable beings.”
I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive but I would suggest that we have a pretty good idea how to turn young people into very bad people and there are ways to avoid that. At some point I think we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that we are going to somehow punish and imprison our way into a safer society. We need to give young people tools to improve their lives rather than merely hitting them with sticks. One of the most astonishing things is that while there were plenty of women family members who came to watch the trial, there were basically no men there, that’s a problem.
Elaine: I guess I just don’t see what is served by attaching derrogatory labels to young people, even young people who do bad or even horrible things. These kids in this case are coming out of custody, I would hate to think that we are simply giving up on them and forever consigning them as thugs.
“Why wouldn’t bail have been set and paid to get them out of incarceration? “
I can find out, but a lot of times, for poor people, bail is not an option. I’ll find out what bail was.
“The charged crimes don’t seem to be so serious. Is it possible they have some criminal history that you didn’t mention?”
As adults they were facing a good amount of time with gang enhancements attached to each felony.
“Before too many words are spent picking at the prosecution case and strategy, we should acknowledge that those found “not guilty” probably were as much “guilty participants” in the terrible attack as their convicted cohorts. If you buy their guilty-but-exonerated status, why waste time on how the witnesses failed in court? I don’t get it. “
I buy the guilty of lesser crimes than charged but exonerated. I think there are several issues here that need to be raised and are getting lost in the “thug” label. First, that this case could have settled in March. The reason once it didn’t settle that it dragged as long as it did is the packed agenda for the courts as well as the never ending death penalty trial. Second, that the gang charges were ridiculous. Third, that the injuries did not match the testimony of the victim. Without the gang charges, this is a straight juvenile case, which is what it should have been. The idea of direct filing 14 and 15 year olds is abhorrent to me.
[quote]Elaine: I guess I just don’t see what is served by attaching derrogatory labels to young people, even young people who do bad or even horrible things. These kids in this case are coming out of custody, I would hate to think that we are simply giving up on them and forever consigning them as thugs.[/quote]
If the shoe fits… so be it…
Bail was $100,000 and they faced 18-20 yrs
[quote][i]”Bail was $100,000 and they faced 18-20 yrs”[/i][/quote]Thanks for tracking. I guess I see that it could be difficult to scrape up $10,00-$15,000 for a bail bond. But, that just emphasizes the weirdness of our practices for incarceration before trial. The purpose isn’t to keep them in jail, but to help assure they have good motive to show up for trial.
So, “not guilty” minors spend 9 or 10 months in jail because their families cannot scrape up ten grand? Disgusting.
A related issue: Are you positive you are correct that the direct filing (and bail justifications?) were limited to the single, alleged comment from one of them about “where are you from?..better get out of here now!” “gang-related” comment?
Are they really kids without any law enforcement contacts or charges in their pasts? Are they citizens who’ve lived here their whole lives, with family and job contacts in the local area?
A hundred thousand not ten. These would seem to be families without much means.
On the related issue. I was there when judge mock made the holding order.
“If the shoe fits… so be it… “
In my view it’s prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
David,
yes, I would concede that it’s a good idea to find a way to help these youths adjust their attitude and turn away from a criminal lifestyle.
I think the perps should be jailed for some time period; but am frustrated by the way our jails are run, which is often degrading. I am for punishment, but not degradation. As I understand it, jails are run so that young inmates with a lot of youthful energy and testosterone have little to do; and wind up causing trouble and generally abusing each other. I much prefer the boot camp type correctional facility, where the inmates are kept busy with work and live a disciplined lifestyle and do something useful, for perhaps the first time in their life. I think if they work, they should be compensated at something around minimum wage (and also credit toward earlier release); with most of the money available to them only when they are released. With some seed money available to them upon release, they have more incentive to straighten out their lives.
DG, I’m surmising that poster, JS was referencing the 10% of the total bail.
jimt
I agree with your post with one exception. I do not see that society or the individual benefit from punishment.
What is needed is redirection when the offender is a youth. Your description of how you would envision their time of confinement as one in which they can perhaps learn a skill, develop social skills they are lacking and an ethic of contributing to their community rather than of destruction is one I could completely support.
Elaine
“If the shoe fits ….so be it”
While the description may be technically correct, I agree with David that it does nothing to further inform the discussion . It may have other adverse consequences by provoking a more negative emotional response from those motivated by the goal of punishment rather than the goal of protecting society. It could certainly be prejudicial against the motivation of helping these individuals develop better skills to help them lead constructive vs destructive lives. In my opinion labeling of individuals, instead of focusing on improving their actions, rarely contributes positively to their demeanor and may harden the view of society against them thus further limiting their future options.
[quote][i]”In my opinion labeling of individuals, instead of focusing on improving their actions, rarely contributes positively to their demeanor and may harden the view of society against them thus further limiting their future options.”[/i][/quote]That may be technically correct. However, it ignores several points, including the main one–that the [u]Vanguard[/u] is built on a foundation of labeling people.
David doesn’t approve of labeling lawbreakers for what they are and what they do. But, he aggressively labels people in authority (the DA, law enforcement, elected leaders, university officials and others) and encourages a forum for readers to label (in the most personal attack ways) without ever calling them on it the way David has done in this case.
This isn’t much more than a semantics chat (“don’t call them crooks, say they do crooked things.)
But, you are right. Labeling people is prejudicial and working against desirable change. I agree that this approach “rarely contributes positively to their demeanor and may harden the view of society against them thus further limiting their future options.” I am, of course, including the [u]Vanguard[/u] approach as I’m seconding your thoughtful admonitions.
Labeling of individuals for their actions is necessary and beneficial. If the label is perceived as negative and unwanted, then the individual can change his behavior to rid himself of the label. Walking on egg shells to ensure that we don’t offend people behaving badly only reinforces their bad behavior. Our culture even goes further and CELEBRATES this bad behavior.
Frankly, nothing matters except how a person behaves. We have laws and accepted social norms for civility and morality. Break the laws, and ignore the social norms at your own peril for being labeled as such.
I think political correctness for acceptance and inclusion of certain classes of people has grown to a dysfunctional mindset and contributes to the ongoing degradation of society. I want these kids to know that the adults in the room will absolutely not tolerate behavior below the line… and we will deal with them harshly if they do… including labeling them as thugs and thieves. Then we can teach them that it takes at least ten attaboys to make up for one oh-shit, and encourage them to start doing the right things to earn a new positive label.