![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/probation-765x510.jpeg)
By most estimates, more than 95 percent of all criminal cases end up being settled through plea bargain rather than trial. Many of these are adjudicated as felonies and, while oftentimes the defendant ends up not serving prison time, reformers like Michelle Alexander have warned that felony status alone is huge and often has unforeseen consequences that make it difficult for convicted felons to receive benefits, get jobs, vote, and get approved for housing.
The article features a story of a woman who had no prior run-ins with the law, was 40 with a clean driving record, but made the mistake of driving, after drinking wine, two guests home from a December 2013 party at her apartment. She ended up being stopped for speeding, failed the breathalyzer test, and was charged with drunken driving.
She ended up pleading guilty and entered a probation program under which, provided she followed the rules, she would avoid a conviction.
The New York Times reports, “But over the next 18 months, Mrs. Hall would find herself in trouble again and again, though she committed no new crimes. She spent countless hours attending court and lost thousands of dollars in fees, legal costs and wages, as well as two jobs. The judge handling her case imposed conditions far harsher than the norm, then repeatedly called Mrs. Hall into court for violations like failing to ask permission before moving to a different unit in her apartment complex.”
She would ultimately spend more than a month in jail as she could not afford another $2,500 to bail herself out.
The Times writes, “Mrs. Hall’s misdemeanor, one of more than a million drunken-driving arrests each year, is not one that would normally attract attention. No one was injured and no property was damaged, and most courts do not come down hard on first-time offenders in drunken-driving cases.”
However, the Times writes, “as more states turn to probation and parole as a means of reducing incarceration, her story shows how even a supposedly light punishment like probation can severely disrupt a working-class life and weigh heavily on its prospects.”
“There are a number of people around the country being put on probation that don’t really need to be on probation,” said Carl Wicklund, the executive director of the American Parole and Probation Association, a professional group. “It’s a bad use of resources, and it’s bad for the individual.”
According to the times, only about two-thirds of probationers successfully complete their terms.
This is just one way the criminal justice system can backfire on a stable, nonviolent defendant like Mrs. Hall.
“If I took you and locked you up for 30 days, what would happen?” said Edward Latessa, director of the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. “You’d lose your job, you might lose your apartment, you end up with a criminal record. I don’t help you — I give you new risk factors.”
There are some extreme elements in Mrs. Hall’s case.
The Times notes that, while the prosecutor would offer her probation prior to judgment in exchange for a guilty plea, “Judge Joan Bossmann Gordon of Maryland District Court in Baltimore balked over what she viewed as Mrs. Hall’s lack of cooperation with the police. After taking a recess to consider the matter, she agreed to the plea deal ‘against my better judgment.’”
Remember, this is a person with no prior record. The Times writes, “Typically, drunken-driving defendants get a professional assessment to determine what kind of treatment they need: a 26-hour class for ‘problem drinkers’ or a 12-hour class for ‘social drinkers.’ Mrs. Hall denies having a drinking problem, and there is nothing in her record to suggest otherwise.”
The Times notes, “But Judge Gordon did not wait for an assessment. She sentenced Mrs. Hall to 18 months supervised probation, costing her $105 a month in fees for probation and drunken-driving monitoring. She also ordered Mrs. Hall to attend 26 weeks of alcohol education at $70 a week and three Alcoholics Anonymous meetings a week.”
She complied with the numerous conditions for several months but the judge had imposed a condition on Ms. Hall, “She could not move without the judge’s permission.”
When Ms. Hall’s “apartment developed a mouse infestation and she made arrangements to change units, she wrote to the judge on Aug. 19. “I, Donyelle Hall, will be moving on the first of the month, Sept. 1,” she wrote. She provided the new address, saying it was ‘just around the corner from where I am now.’”
However, the judge noted, “This is not a request for permission prior to moving.” And then: “Defendant DOES NOT have permission to change her address.” So a month later, “a police officer knocked on Mrs. Hall’s door and handed her a summons to a probation violation hearing. As it turned out, Mrs. Hall had not moved after all, because the new unit was not available. The summons had been served to her at her original address.”
It would take her three and a half months, five court hearings and three letters from her landlord and a copy of her lease to convince the judge. Finally, Judge Gordon dismissed the violation, saying, “At this point, ma’am, you have a clear understanding of what you can and cannot do on probation without getting permission.”
An expert at the probation association told the Times, “One of the biggest challenges that probation has is having to deal with conditions of supervision that aren’t relevant, they’re not supported by research and they’re not realistic.”
The Times reports that, after this, Ms. Hall’s compliance began to fray and after giving Ms. Hall a few chances, the probation officer reported missing paperwork to the judge.
She turned herself into jail after a warrant was issued with a bond of $5000. On March 12, 2015, she went to jail, hoping the matter would be resolved quickly.
The jail she turned herself into is one of the worst in the country. The Times reports, “The Baltimore City Detention Center is so bad that the governor recently ordered part of it shut down after a recent federal investigation of the jail resulted in 40 convictions. In June, a court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union detailed black mold, vermin infestations, filthy mattresses and prisoners who, lacking working toilets, were forced to defecate in plastic bags.”
She ended up being released after spending 34 days in jail.
Again, this is not a typical story, but it does illustrate even misdemeanor probation can be fraught with perils for those in the system.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David wrote,
“Again, this is not a typical story, but it does illustrate even misdemeanor probation can be fraught with perils for those in the system.”
My first reaction to this story was if it is not typical then why tell it. Then there was the unanswered question of what was so egregious about the facts in this case or defendant that caused the judge to act in this manner? The next reaction was that this occurred in Baltimore of all places, that distant bastion of ethical and professional policing, prosecution, and city governance. The police are so ineffective at this point that the feds are providing assistance investigating the out of control murder rate. The local prosecutor is busy grand standing in the media, Prince concerts and numerous articles while her office appears to have concealed exculpatory evidence against the six police officers. The mayor’s performance during the aftermath of the Freddie Grey’s death has been pathetic. My next reaction is that their is usually two sides to every story and we have only heard one. Editorial license on what to include in the story can often result in a biased reporting. We often see that here in the pages of the Vanguard where the alleged stories often in reality are only editorials. My final reaction was why do you have to go 3,000 miles to Baltimore to find an example of an alleged bad outcome for a misdemeanor probation case. Does that mean that there are none in Yolo County or California?
On a personal note I believe that where drunk driving is concerned the most rigorous educational class should be the option of first choice where the defendant should have to prove that a less rigorous class is appropriate. Not the other way around. This promotes public safety and hopefully reduces the instances for a repeat performance. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.
‘ll answer the why I think it’s important to tell the story.
I think there is a sense from a lot of attorneys that avoiding additional custody time is a win. And for many, it probably is. But this story is a reminder that a fairly minor crime, with misdemeanor probation, can get the person into the system and once they are there, they are at the mercy of a judge or system that may not have their best interests at heart and may not for reasons not understood play fair. You think we should not consider worst-case scenario when we choose a course of action?
I do not consider drunk driving a minor crime when looking at all of the lives that have been destroyed by drunk drivers. In any given year during the Vietnam war more American citizens were killed by drunk drivers than American soldiers killed in Vietnam. It may only be a misdemeanor but is clearly one of the more serious ones historically, even after Prop 47.
Your story describes the negative impacts of a jail stay in this case so that would seem to support the theory that avoiding jail time is a win. I also think that the judge’s priority should be on protecting the community and the best interests of the community as a whole, not necessarily the best interests of the criminal.
“the judge’s priority should be on protecting the community and the best interests of the community as a whole, not necessarily the best interests of the criminal.”
In cases such as this, I see the best interests of the criminal and the best interest of the community as one and the same. It is unsafe to drink and then get behind the wheel of a car. It is unsafe for the community and it is unsafe for the driver themselves. Any action that is taken should be aimed at preventing the act from being repeated, not at “punishing” the offender. So, the question should be asked, do actions such as quibbling over “notification of change of housing” vs “asking permission to change housing” make it any more or less likely that the offender will re offend ? Every action taken or imposed by the judge should be aimed directly at this goal, not at making the life of the offender more difficult.
Tia,
Phil notes that there were multiple summons to court for this defendant which leads me to believe that it took some effort to get her into court. If she failed to appear numerous times and the excuse was that I moved and you have the wrong address then the judge imposing the requirement that the defendant must have the permission of the judge to move makes sense. The judge wants an accurate address so if they mail a summons for her to come to court she will receive it. This avoids the I moved and forgot to tell you excuse. This may very well be the rationale of that judge that either the New York Times or David conveniently left out. I do not see this as quibbling. In fact your attitude is naive in assuming the innocent intent of this dangerous criminal. I believe that every drunk driver is a dangerous criminal based on the carnage inflicted on our society by these criminals.
What I read and tried to convey is that she eventually went from compliant to beaten down by the process.
My overall reaction to this atypical story was essentially the same. Poor Baltimore can’t get out of its own way, becoming the national poster child for everything wrong in criminal justice. The New York Times is the gold standard for quality journalism, or at least it used to be. I’m not sure if there is any traces of gold left anywhere in this used-to-be “profession.”
This story smells. The judge is described in such a way as to almost having a vendetta against this particular woman. Sure, it could happen, it could have been a mean-spirited judge. Yet, I’m having a lot of trouble imagining any judge going nuclear simply because a probationer informed him she was moving instead of asking permission to move. Even with mediocre judges, I’ve been always impressed how tolerant sitting judges are towards folks who are unfamiliar with the nuances of “the system.” If this judge’s actions here was typical, he’d be filling the local jails all by himself.
Where this story stunk up the joint was the described behavior of the defendant (reclassified as victim in this story). Her drunk driving arrest was trivialized, her multiple summons to court were glossed over, briefly summarized, and absent any specifics. There’s a lot more in play here, and it’s not the judge’s fault, even if he’s a Baltimore judge.
Sweeping reform in public policy and execution only comes when disgust reaches critical mass. Baltimore is close. There’s surely many good people in the system and they are going to get hurt, too. Look for the over-tolerant good people to back up the truck, load up everybody with a government job, and drive to the nearest large body of deep water. Nothing in Baltimore typifies the rest of this country. They do excel in delicious crab cakes.
Phil
Obviously I do not know the facts behind the situation, and I make no apologies for a drunk driver. However, I believe from personal experience that you might be downplaying the possibility of a biased judge. My example is much less severe, but a clear case of differential treatment based on some bias on the part of the judge.
So here is what happened. In that Davis ritual of “helmet court” my son, a DaVinci junior schooled in “formal presentation” including dressing nicely, standing up straight, looking people right in the eye, and responding “yes, sir” and “no, sir”and I dressed in business casual since I had to go to work afterwards went before the helmet court judge. I had no idea what to expect having never been before a judge before.
Immediately preceding us were a mother son pair who did not appear to have the advantages of affluence or training in formal presentations. They were both dressed in jeans, T shirts which were clean but clearly had seen some wear and tear. The boy slouched, hung his head and answered questions with “yeah” or “no”. Like my son, it was stated the boy was a first time offender. The judge essentially read the boy the riot act, very stern voice, very harsh, long lecture. Now, I was apprehensive facing what appeared to me to be overkill.
However, our experience was entirely different. The judge’s questions to my son were brief and were answered by my son in an extremely polite manner. This was a matter of training, not the inherently superior nature of my son. My son got off with a simple I hope you appreciate how dangerous riding without a helmet is and when responded to with “yes, sir”. “And we won’t see you here again will we ?” a “no, sir” we were instructed to see the bailiff and were on our way.
Same infraction, first offense for both boys, completely different treatment by the same judge, at nearly the same time on the same day. Now I don’t pretend to know what was in the judge’s heart and mind, but the differential treatment was unmistakable. I cannot wonder if differential treatment based on subjective factors and judicial bias is not more common than we might assume. After all, they are people with the same strengths and weaknesses as all the rest of us.
Similar experience with a good friend who’s teen got caught with a joint in Community Park. Affluent parents, private lawyer. Probation officers allowed the parents to conduct the pee test in the privacy of their homes. They went to the station one day & saw a Latina woman & her son in the lobby. She was sobbing. She had to wait while her son had to pee in front of a stranger, who hopefully was not a pedophile. Same offense. Totally different punishment. Oh, and she had to pay for the $30 ee test. If any of you want to make a very small contribution to a worthy cause, go to the Davis Police and volunteer to buy a pee test for a low income kid to pee in the privacy of his own home. If the judge allows it, the parents have to buy the pdd tests and if alcohol related, the alcohol test strips. I’ve heard a rumor that Davis Police now give free alcohol stris to any parent wh wants them. We had our lab trained to sniff cigarettes, joints and alcohol so we didn’t need them.
Interesting – a couple of people have emailed me that this story isn’t so atypical.
P.C., Your action “speaks volumes”. Why not find the missing pieces since you insinuate David did not do a complete job. I have no reason to believe this stinks until you provide more info. Surely this woman was treated badly and indeed beaten down, possibly due to a judge that needs to step down or at least take a break from his job for awhile. No one is trivializing or “glossing over” her DUI offense. It’s the series of events that followed her release that are truly mind boggling.
Your *reaction*
“I believe that where drunk driving is concerned the most rigorous educational class should be the option of first choice where the defendant should have to prove that a less rigorous class is appropriate. Not the other way around. This promotes public safety and hopefully reduces the instances for a repeat performance.”
What I believe is that the course that has been demonstrated to be associated with the least amount of repeat instances of DUI is the one that should be the default. There is often an assumption that a longer or more onerous course will be the most effective which is not always the case. It is my impression that our judicial system relies very heavily on precedent. Too often this is to the exclusion of new information and data that demonstrate the precedent to be outdated and far from the best path forward.
“Judicially prescribed courses” and their outcomes might make for an interesting topic for an article if someone with the knowledge were interested in writing.
Tia,
So you are say that you want the most effective course and have no personal knowledge as to which course is the most effective. The story indicates that often the probation department conducts a needs or risk assessment of the defendant to determine which class they should take. Instead in the story the judge decided on the longer course for reasons that are not included in this story. I can only assume that there is some correlation between the needs/risk assessment, length of the course and the expected outcome of those who complete the course.
zaqzaq
“I can only assume “
And therein lies the basis of my question. As I stated, I believe ( primarily on the basis of my knowledge of how business is conducted in the state prison system) that there is often not a well founded evidence based reason for why any given process is continued. Often no change occurs at all even in the face of demonstrated better practices because the idea that “this is how we have always done it” reigns supreme. I do not know that you are incorrect, but given what I know about “precedent” vs evidence based practices, it is not an assumption that I am willing to make. Thus the question. Thus the suggestion for an article.
Hello David,
As you know, my roommate was on a lengthy probation as part of his plea bargain. We had to remind the other tenants in the house they must keep their bedroom doors locked, and not tell us where they keep their keys, or else the cops would be able to search their rooms. The probation officers did try to ask me where the keys to the other bedrooms were. I politely told them my lawyer advised me that I did not have to tell them. We could not have any medically prescribed pot in the house, or any alcohol. I threw away all the Nyquil and cooking vanilla just to be safe. A friend once tried to give me a bottle of wine as a gift. I asked her to please take it back to her car immediately.
I was home once when the probation officers came to my door at 6:55 a.m., screaming, “Open your door right now or we’ll kick it in. Open It. NOW.” Apparently I did not rush down the staircase fast enough. When I opened my front door in a long ee shirt & no other clothing, they immediately hndcuffed me. I had to ask permission to call my boss to tell him I’d be arriving late. Thank God his own fmily member had been harrased by law enforcement years ago and he was supportive and understanding of my situation. When the officers heard me talking to my boss, they took off the cuffs but they seached my home for over two hours. At the end of the search, they told me I could get dressed. I told them I had to shower & go to work & there was no point in changing out of my night shirt at that point. I was not going to take a shower with six strange men in my home. I also wanted to stay in the room with my roommate and be a witness in case they bothered him. One officer was carrying a backpack & disappeared into my bedroom. I told the other officer I wanted to see exactly what they were carrying into my home. I told them they were free to take anything out of my home but they needed to show me everything they were bringing ito my home, especially if items wee hidden from my sight. They told me I could walk upstairs into my bedroom and see the equipment the IT. cop was using. I told them it was too late for that, I had no idea what he was doing up in my bedroom with no witnesses.
One officer found my itemized cell phone bill in my desk. She stared at it for a really long time, like she was memorizing all the numbers on my bill. It made me paranoid. I felt bad the cops had all my friends and coworkers’ phone numbers, because they stared at my address book for a long time, too.
There were 5 or 6 cops and one asked me, while I was in cuffs, to tell him all my computer passwords to “speed things up”. I told him my passwords, then of course had to take one hour to reset all the passwords on my system after they all left my house. 6 strangers had all my personal banking info & all my friends’ email addresses. . I missed 3 hours of work that morning. Luckily, I had paid personal days to cover the three hours and a very compassionate manager. Others in my situation could be fired.
My roommate had already retired from his law practice so luckily he did not lose wages. I was home for almost all of the early morning probation checks. Some readers will think, “It’s your own fault for letting him (an innocent man) live in your home.” Okay. Whatever.
Probation can be very costly. If a single person has joint custody, and the officers come calling on a school morning, taking your kids to school late could be cause to lose custody. Probation is not free by any stretch of the imagination. I wish Mr. OBrien and others on probation all the best. I wish them strength and self conofidence and a stress free experience. I strongly suggest spiritual counseling and therapy to anyone on probation. And exercise, and yoga. And appreciate your friendships and the support and love of your family.
This story speaks volumes.
I hear you Phil.
My story speaks volumes? Your reactions always speak volumes, too. I believe you are the person who commented one time that I was smart to post anonymously. Interesting. If you are not the one who wrote that remark, accept my apologies. If you are, not sure where you were going with that remark; it almost sounded a tad bit like a veiled threat….I am the daughter of a cop but at least I can see both sides of a story. You rarely are able to, due to your past profession, I assume.
Sisterhood,
Your partner is guilty in the eyes of the law and agreed to accept the requirements of his probation no matter how often or how long you proclaim his innocence. You may find it inconvenient that probation is checking up on him to make sure he is not re-offending but that is their job. To monitor criminals to protect the community. Personally I want the probation department to visit and search criminals homes. Especially if they have been convicted of sex crimes which I believe is the case here from one of your posts months ago. You made a choice to stay with him and to be affected by these circumstances. That was your choice. He chose to admit the crime(s) when he made a plea bargain. That was his choice.
Hello zaqzaq,
Not sure I’ve ever referred to my roommate or my friend as my partner. If you are asking me, it is none of your business. I have adequately described my relationship to him. He was fortunate – after 2 lie detector tests, positive letters from support staff, independent therapist reports, and a record that the Yolo Co. Judge himself described as “a model citizen”, his classes abruptly ended one day & he was told his probation period could be shortened if he spent the time and money to file papers, which he did, in proper. He spent the time, energy and money for two additional court appearances. He was very fortunate to know many lawyers and to have had legal training himself. A non-legally educated in proper case may have ended differently. He also had his record expunged.
I do hope you never suffer a similar experience.
Peace
sisterhood
Thanks so much for sharing your personal experience. I had no idea that probation could involve such harrowing experiences for the roommates and/or family members of the person on probation. In my mind, probation meant that the individual had to check in periodically with some representative of the court, attend any courses or programs applicable, and not break any additional laws. I had no idea it might involve the equivalent of a home invasion with inspection/ confiscation of the property of other members of the household.
What an eye opener !
Agree Tia. Phil could you summarize what a ‘normal’ probation involves and why perhaps this was so different. It seems the harassing of the ‘landlord’ sisterhood violated HER rights considerably.
I cannot waste another precious day of my life stressing about my rights being violated. I have to live every day like it’s my last. I will end up in therapy again if I stress about the cops and the court system. I don’t have time for either. Thank you for trying to get more info from Phil C. but it will not help me, my family, my neighbors who were frightened those early mornings, my coworkers who had to fill in for me, or anyone else in my support circel. I have to put it all behind me for my own sanity. I appreciate your kind words. Thanks for understanding. If you truly feel bad, write to the innocense project for the names of some wrongfully convicted death row or lifers and send them encouraging letters. That’s what I do, since I cannot afford to donate money for their legal defense.
Peace.
continued peace to you too.
If you want, I’ll privately send you the chapter of my book that deals with court ordered counseling. A friend of mine does anger management counseling, and my roommate had to attend another kind of counseling. I used both resources and others to write about it. I have several friends who are private therapists, too, and they helped me gain much needed perspective into “confrontation based group therapy”. I went along as part of his support group. It’s taken me three years to write that one painful chapter, changing everyone in group therapy’s name, gender, occupations, etc. so as to protect their privacy but still write down what happens in those sessions. It was extremely cathartic to get that chapter of my life, literally and figuratively, behind me. Since you are a medical doctor I know you will keep my information private. If you are too busy to read it or it doesn’t interest you, that’s fine. No worries.
Tia,
The probation department should be searching the homes of those on probation looking for alcohol, illegal drugs, child pornography or other items that are related to the criminal offense. It would be reasonable for a judge to tell a repeat drunk diver not to possess or use alcohol, or a drug addict to not use or possess illegal drugs, or a child molester to not posses child pornography, or a rapist to not possess rape porn. If there is a computer in the home it is reasonable for the probation department to search it, even if it is shared with others. It would be naive to expect the judge to believe that the criminal would never lie when they “check in periodically”. After all they are convicted criminals who have demonstrated that they cannot follow rules. I feel safer when criminals homes are searched by probation officers looking for alcohol, drugs, or a computer for pornography. It enforces probation agreements and protects the community.
My private itemized cell phone statement should not have been scrutinized. It was not an alcohol offense and he had a perfectly legal doctor’s prescription for cannabis.
Too bad the overworked probably underpaid probation officer didn’t find Jaycee when she was right under his nose. Maybe if he wasn’t in such a rush racing to a bunch of homes like mine, he could have taken the time to look up, seeing the extension cords, and look in the outer backyard, where her torture chamber was located. He only had so many hours in his day, and he didn’t have time to find her. I’m not blaming him. I’m blaming the plea system bloat of harmless people who pled to the zip code only registry as part of their plea deal.
My final comment on this subject is wow, zaqzaq, you truly don’t get it when you use the word “criminal” for someone who plea bargains & gets probation as part of their plea. My roommate, like Mr. O.B., was innocent and accepted a plea. He is not a criminal. I would appreciate it if you pondered what you would do if you were in Mr. O.B.’s situation. I also wonder what you would do if a perfect stranger sent child porn to you when you did not do anything at all. You did not search the web for it, or ever tell anyone you wanted it. What would you do? You don’t need to reply, I’ve read enough. Just look deep into your soul and put yourself in another’s shoes for a moment. You can’t really know until it happens to you, but you may actually find yourself accepting a plea bargain when you are 100% innocent.
Again, I truly hope nothing like that ever happens to you. Peace.
“I feel safer when criminals homes are searched by probation officers looking for alcohol, drugs, or a computer for pornography. It enforces probation agreements and protects the community.”
The law differentiates between child & adult porn but probation does not. In my home I removed every picture of my kids in their bathing suits, holding hands with other kids. I removed the framed photo of my mother bathing her newborn granddaughter in my kitchen sink. Photo’s of the beloved art I viewed at Musee Dorcee, the Louvre, and small galleries. The art I viewed in Amsterdam. (If I had ever taken a photo of the sculpture that used to be outside the old Borders Books in Davis, out of paranoia, I would have removed that, too. )I asked the probation officer about my photos of the museums in Paris. She told me I’d have to take them down to the police dept. and show the cops & let them decide. I told her never mind, I was already storing them with a family member. Then I was terrified they would harass my sibling about our innocent vacation photo’s.
Problem is, some cops say jokingly “it’s hard to describe porn but you always know it when you see it.” Really? Is the HBO show “Girls” porn? Is the photo of my mom bathing my daughter in our kitchen sink child porn? Who decides?
Adult porn is still legal. Playboy and Penthouse are still legal, but I’m too afraid to do an internet search to see if they still produce those magazines in a hard copy any longer. Is Emmanuelle, the Story of a Woman, still considered porn? I have no idea.
I’m glad you feel safer when the cops search for adult porn, wine, or a joint. I don’t. I feel scared, paranoid and sick to my stomach.
It is definitely not reasonable for an I.T. cop to disappear into my bedroom with no witnesses whatsoever, doing God knows what to my personal (NOT shared) laptop with his little black bag/backpack of I.T. goodies. (No witnesses, even though two other cops were standing in my living room whispering to each other and not searching anywhere. I guess they were guarding me in cuffs in my tee shirt & no underwear, to make sure I wouldn’t try to make a run for it down my street in south Davis. I’d almost rather go to jail than let my neighbors see me with bed head, no makeup, in a sheer cotton tee shirt.) All my paranoid mind was thinking was that he was loading kiddie porn onto my computer because I had previously complained about a rude cop and I had previously complained that they had identified the home of a zip code only registrar, which is against the law. I was very frightened as to what was going on with my private laptop, which had a few general work documents, no private health info, thank God, loaded onto it. I worked for the Dept of Health Services and that cop saw my work (general emails & my work passwds, personally coded, thank God) documents which were private info he should not have seen, imho. They also tried to drill me about my own I.T. job and what kind of reports I ran at my job. I politely told them my job was very complicated & refused to answer any other questions about my own I.T. job.
Bottom line, they were way out of line and used their positions of authority to intimidate me. More than enough said, thank you for allowing this rant today. Next post I’ll really try to focus on the good in this world and not the jerks.
Peace.
Well gosh… The VG opines for releasing more people from prison and jail, and now we should abolish probation too!
“she made a mistake”
That is the new “softer” way to describe breaking of laws. How about we just stick with “she broke the law”?
And how about “do the crime, pay the fine”?
Spending a bit more time reading up on this, Ms. Hall’s problems started to escalate when she failed to provide proof that she had attended the required AA meetings. Her excuse?… ” “I’m very, very, very terrible at holding onto papers,”
I am guessing that the judge developed a very strong suspicion that Ms. Hall was prone to ignoring rules and was in need of more punishment so she could better understand why she needed to follow the rules.
I’m also guessing that Ms. Hall received a very crappy education where she did not gain sufficient skills for holding onto papers.
I am of the mind that we have gone too far in our dealing with drunk driving. From my perspective, a first offense where the BAL is close to the legal limit should be a strong warning shot across the bow. I sat on a Yolo County jury trial where the DA was going after a young woman that refused the breathalyzer and was arrested and then had to be restrained to take a blood sample that came back .03. Then listened to testimony from a government lab scientist that droned on and on only to conclude that her BAL was .05 at its peak. It was here that I learned in CA the law is such that they can arrest and prosecute you for ANY BAL! The jury found her not guilty. And in the exit interview with the DA I had him glaring at me after telling him that he wasted tax payer money pursuing the case.
What irritates me about the VG and people that echo this constant stream of criticism of law enforcement, is that most of them are Democrats and they are served by this Party’s dominance in state and local law MAKING. So why are they not criticizing the law makers to change the laws instead of browbeating those that have the job of enforcing the laws?
“now we should abolish probation too”
Said no such thing.
Frankly
“was in need of more punishment so she could better understand why she needed to follow the rules.”
I would very much like to see any data that demonstrates that “punishment” helps people gain a better understanding of the need to follow the rules. From my understanding, harsher punishment, including longer jail and prison sentences leads to a higher, not lower rate of recidivism.
What makes most people/criminals decide not to commit a crime is because they are afraid of the punishment if caught. Take away that trade-off and we all will see more crime.
I believe it’s far more complicated than that. First of all, even if they are afraid of punishment, there are studies that show less punishment may actually be more effective than more punishment. Second, you need to give people a stake in society or else they will simply reoffend. Third, the current system reinforces the problem. People who are punish reoffend because we don’t solve the core problems – job training, education, substance abuse, mental health. On top of that, people with felony status are ineligible for certain jobs, voting, housing, and other benefits. Punishing people doesn’t work – study after study shows all we do is turn mild offenders into more serious ones.
Sure it does. As long as the drunk driver is in jail or prison, he/she will not drive drunk again.
Your views here open up a Pandoras Box of cause and affect arguments. I do agree with one point you make except for one word.
Giving does not help at all on this point… we need to provide the opportunity to earn and only then will they feel like they have a stake. If you give, you can take away. If you earn, it is yours and your decision for what to do. Big difference here, and it speaks to a fundamental problem I have with social justice crusaders thinking they can make the world a better place with greater redistribution. It does just the opposite. With so many having their lives paid for by government benefits, they will never have a stake. They are just people being taken care of. They can keep making “mistakes” and continue to get taken care of. There is no pride in getting handouts. There is no feeling like you have a stake in something bigger when you are relying on others to take care of you.
You also need to include a point about morality and simply bad behavior.
And we also need to factor the problem of victim mentality. Because there are people that should be satisfied and feeling like they have a stake, but are so embedded with victim mentality that they first setback they have causes the to behave badly again and then double down on blaming others for their own problems.
“What makes most people/criminals decide not to commit a crime is because they are afraid of the punishment if caught.”
This is a very bleak view of humanity to which I do not subscribe. I do not believe that most people would commit crimes except for the fear of being caught and punished. I believe that crimes are largely committed by those who cannot see a better means of achieving their goals. This may be due to lack of education, or either perceived or real lack of opportunity, or from desperation as in the case of those with a drug habit that is all consuming, or perhaps those who have a limited understanding of cause and effect, or perhaps those who simply have the inability to understand that they are not too smart to get caught. I believe it to be a myth that fear of punishment is effective in the prevention of crime.
Do you believe that there are sociopaths?
How does punishment demonstrate better compliance with following the rules. We can begin with often-told story of the mother telling her child to not touch that hot stove. The child does anyway. The punishment was harsh, but future compliance was total. When I was a kid, an electrified cattle fence was pointed out to me and told not to touch it. I touched it to find out what would happen. Never again.
With reference to the crime topic that prompted this discussion, here is your prime example: Compare national drunk driving arrests, accidents involving drunk drivers causing injury or death before the emergence of one Candy Lightner (sp). It was way back in the 60’s, possibly before many of our contemporary observers of society came into being.
If that name is unrecognized, she was the local woman who–after having her young daughter killed by a drunk driver– went on a mission and badgered the California Legislature into shame and submission, and eventually altered the entire national consciousness about the prosecution of drunk drivers. Her persistence resulted in harsher penalties for drunk drivers, lowering of the minimum BA, and more rigorous prosecutions of drunk drivers in every state. The result was incidents of drunk driving and injuries and fatalities related to drunk driving plummeted and we are all to this day safer on public highways as a result.
Phil, when I was younger I used to drive home somewhat inebriated after hitting the bar with my friends. I wouldn’t dream of doing it now with how stiff the penalties are. So right there is one less slightly altered driver on the street because of the feared consequences. You can add millions of others who won’t now take that chance either.
“Ms. Hall was prone to ignoring rules and was in need of more punishment so she could better understand why she needed to follow the rules.”
I defer to Tia’s many previous remarks re: criminal justice system of punishment vs. rehabilitation. Nothing new to say or add here. I guess we’l never agree. I prefer rehab vs. punishment. I agree with Tia’s perspective and she describe it more eloquently than I. See her past posts.
I think the court did in fact prescribe rehabilitation actions. For example, attending AA meetings.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
What choice does the court have if those charged do not comply with the rehabilitation prescription?
“What choice does the court have if those charged do not comply with the rehabilitation prescription?”
What I’d like to see rx’d has not been used yet, so I can’t comment. I believe everyone in county or prison should be required to work. And take reading classes and basic English classes. First aid. Self defense. One hour aerobic & one hour meditative exercise per day. One hour quiet time for reading or journal writing. Limited t.v. and limited computers. Mandatory therapy. Choice of spiritual counseling. Organic gardening for non violent offenders. Kitchen duties, cooking duties. A large outdoor area for gardening and meditation. Music and animal therapy for death row inmates.
I believe that having one’s freedom removed is enough punishment. Being told when to rise, sleep, eat, and what to eat is the punishment.
I am against assigning gangs vs. others upon arrival. I am against charging inmates to talk to their children on the phone. I am against the special area codes that prisons are assigned. If your loved one is in Solano Co jail, it is a pay call. All the free area codes are already assigned to customers. Your loved one must call you collect.
I am against jailstaff telling an inmate they cannot retrieve a book for him unless he knows the spelling of the author’s name and the precise title of the book. I am against the policy that visitors to Solano Co. Jail cannot wear a tasteful sleevless dress in triple digit weather. Michelle Obama would never been allowed to visit an inmate in that facility. Women and men must wear sleeves, even in triple digit weather. I believe a supply of extra large tee shirts should be on hand for first time visitors, and women or men who dress too revealingly. I am against refusing to let a mom who is holding a newborn take her newborn to visit the father, even if the mom is nursing the baby, unless the Mom produces the baby’s birth certificate.
I am against the cruelty displayed to gay and trans inmates.
I am against the written instructions for visiting hours and the game playing. I believe the jail should provide a sharp pen or pencil for the visitors, since no writing objects are allowed in the lobby, yet, if the one or two pencils are gone, the visitors have nothing to sign in with.
I am against the lobby personnel telling visitors their inmate cannot be visited because the entire floor is on lockdown, and then staff refusing to tell the visitor if their loved one has been injured in the lockdown.
I believe any jail or prison guard should have a stress presumption for their workers comp stress claims, the same way a firefighter has a heart or lung presumption and a police officer has presumptions. A guard should not have to prove he is suffering ptsd if he works with inmates. He should get the maximum w.c. benefit if he is unable to perform his duties due to stress.
The prison system needs an overhaul, and privitization is definitely not the solution.
When true rehab is offered, I’ll be glad to answer your question, Frankly.
P.S. Frankly, I abhor DUI’s. I believe anyone who DUI’s should be treated the same as someone using a weapon, because a big metal vehicle is a weapon. My co-worker’s child was killed by a DUI driver. We told both our teens if they ever DUI’d, we would not bail them out of jail. Thank God we never had to have our bluff called. I don’t know what I would have done.
Fankly
“What choice does the court have if those charged do not comply with the rehabilitation prescription?”
I have a suggestion. Now before you go into paroxysms of laughter, please hear me all the way out. In medicine, we have tried unsuccessfully for many, many years to counsel, cajole, threaten people with severe illness ( punishment) in order to get them to adopt behavioral approaches that will help them to lose weight. All to no significant avail.
So, what does seem to help ? Asking the person what they see as the problem and how they feel that they could best address it. I suggest in cases such as the one described ( obviously not those of violent criminals or those demonstrating repetitive dangerous behaviors, which I agree DUI is) the person themselves be asked to design a rehabilitative program for themselves. One could specify certain parameters and then allow the individual to design a program that they feel would be likely to improve their behavior in the desired area with in those parameters. This might include AA if the person had a problem with alcohol addiction. But if the true problem was not addiction but an underestimate of how much they had consumed on one occasion, AA attendance is not going to be beneficial and perhaps some form of community service ir self awareness program might be better than AA.
AA has a very low efficacy rate. It’s just an interesting historical anachronism that our courts ‘sentence’ people to attend AA at all. Direct medical counseling and community service, plus making it very, very expensive to drive under the influence at all, is likely to be much more effective.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/principles
Sweden became an interesting case study in the impact of government policies on DUI and traffic death rates. Many years ago they lowered the DUI rate to 0.02% (compared to our 0.08% rate) and began strictly enforcing it with severe penalties. Then when they joined the EU they had to accept reductions in their strict regulation and taxation of alcohol, and changes in enforcement and the number of roadside breath tests were implemented. You can see the results in Sweden, plus discussion of other countries, here: http://resources.prev.org/documents/FittoDrive.pdf
Our judicial system lags far behind the advances in understanding of substance abuse, but changing it would require a lot of money and a whole new way of thinking about alcohol and drugs. In the absence of that, stricter enforcement, lots of roadside breath tests and random driver stops, and significant penalties will be much more effective than any revolving door of AA attendance. Imagine if we adopted a 0.02% blood alcohol limit and enforced it with stiff sanctions?
Or you will vote for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton who would abolish Uber.
http://gizmodo.com/study-suggests-uber-reduces-dui-deaths-1722149805
.02% would not qualify as driving while intoxicated or driving drunk. And this gets us back to the point about what is reasonable. At .02% you should consider all other types of equitable impairments. Give me a Benadryl and I would be more impaired than at .02%. Allow me to drive while sleepy and/or sick and I am likely much more dangerous than at .02%.
And what about people on THC that drive?
I agree that we need to draw the line and make the penalty stiff; but I don’t accept unreasonable rules and penalties. Frankly given the the demonstrated driving skills of many Davisites they might as well be blowing a .08.
.02 – .04 is considered safe by all but the extremists in this space. And most people would not be materially impaired up to .07. That is why the .08 laws.
The data we tend to get bombarded with is incomplete. For example, what is the average BAC of the driver for accidents determined to be caused by the driver?
From Wikipedia:
Should we adopt a zero tolerance position on drinking and driving? If so, I think there are a lot of other zero tolerance positions we would need to take. For example, I think a driving IQ test should be required and people that don’t pass it should not be allowed to drive. And older people should have their license taken away because they have slow response times. And foreigners should not be allowed to drive unless they demonstrate sufficient driving IQ based on local norms. Anyone on any drug should be prohibited from driving. Parents with young children should be prohibited from driving due to the distractions that can occur. The list goes on…
No, it’s basically a zero-tolerance policy.
I believe there are conditions under which each of those would be illegal.
Some people are legally impaired at .05 while all people are legally impaired at .08. That is what the DOJ criminalist testified to when I served as an alternate juror. After that experience I concluded that the level should be dropped from .08 to .05 for a safer community.
I agree. Candy Lightener is a heroine and a courageous soul.
The U.S. is starting to catch up with many European cultures that view DUI’s as gauche and immature. We have to make it such a shameful crime that no one will want to be caught doing it. Punishing doesn’t work. Same with drugs. If drug addiction was more shameful, less youths would go party and experiment in the first place. Free quality mental health counseling might catch some of the at risk youths who self medicate before they have a chance to experiment. And mentally healthy kids need constant support and supervision, until they can be trusted to go out with their friends and not succumb to peer pressure. Not easy but worth the time & effort. My other two cents is that some Davis parents are doing no favors by giving their kids a large allowance.
Phil
“How does punishment demonstrate better compliance with following the rules. We can begin with often-told story of the mother telling her child to not touch that hot stove. The child does anyway. The punishment was harsh, but future compliance was total. When I was a kid, an electrified cattle fence was pointed out to me and told not to touch it. I touched it to find out what would happen. Never again.”
I do not see these as punishment. I see them as natural consequences which happen in the moment and are immediately embedded in our consciousness without us doing any conscious processing at all. This to me is far different from arbitrarily determined “punishment” which may or may not fit the crime and as time passes has less and less probability of either extinguishing the undesired behavior or enforcing better behavioral choices. The example in this case is really a very good one. If it is true as claimed that this woman was not an alcoholic, AA will be of no benefit and may lead to an increased contempt for the law if this type of system is actually in opposition to the woman’s own belief system.
Don
“Do you believe that there are sociopaths?”
I do believe that there are sociopaths. And when they are dangerous and or violent within our society, I believe that they need to be isolated for the protection of others. I do not believe that “punishment” is effective for the true “sociopath” because they do not adhere to the basic premise that most of us agree with which is that the lives of others matter. If an individual is truly sociopathic, they will not be influenced by threats of punishment for a very simple reason. They do not believe that societies rules apply to them, or that they may believe that they will be able to outsmart others and thus not be caught, or some other deviation from the point of view that all are responsible for their own actions and that the rules apply to all.
BP
“when I was younger I used to drive home somewhat inebriated after hitting the bar with my friends. I wouldn’t dream of doing it now with how stiff the penalties are.”
Now this is a very interesting statement to me. When much,much younger, I also was behind the wheel of a car inebriated. I also would never dream of doing that now but for a very different reason. The stiff penalties have nothing to do with it for me. The fear that I have that would prevent me from driving under the influence is my fear that I would through this supremely selfish act end up harming another human being.
I state this only to illustrate that there are many ways to arrive at the same sound decision. Fear of punishment is only one and in my opinion a very weak motivator compared to respect and compassion for others.