On Friday a reader commenting on the Judicial Watch article about a man convicted of first degree murder of his wife wrote, “The guy is guilty of first degree murder for the public murder of his wife and you are complaining about the 5 digit cost of his trial! Have you totally lost it? When the cost of trying capital cases is more important then [sic] justice we have completely lost our bearings as a society.”
As if to answer that question, on Saturday, the New York Times published an article that shows a reversal in the trend of “tough on crime” polices, even in conservative states.
Wrote the NY Times, “While liberals have long complained that harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses like drug possession are unjust, the push to overhaul penal policies has been increasingly embraced by elected officials in some of the most conservative states in the country. And for a different reason: to save money.”
The article cited Texas, long the bellwether for harsh sentencing, and the capital punishment capital of the world. In 2007, Texas projected a shortfall of 17,000 inmate beds by 2012. However, “Instead of building and operating new prison space, the State Legislature decided to steer nonviolent offenders into drug treatment and to expand re-entry programs designed to help recently released inmates avoid returning to custody.”
The result is that the prison system in Texas “is now operating so far under its capacity that this month it is closing a 1,100-bed facility in Sugar Land – the first time in the state’s history that a prison has closed.”
The result is that Texas is saving hundreds of millions and what is really interesting is that, instead of a rise in crime, “the changes have coincided with the violent crime rate’s dipping to its lowest level in 30 years.”
These are the same types of changes anticipated in California by Prop 109 which will shift non-violent and low level offenders away from state prisons and toward counties, where they are closer to family and resources.
Many reformers hope that in the effort to cut costs, California too will change the way it punishes crime.
The article in the Times quoted Marc Levin, the director of the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which helped draft the state’s corrections overhaul.
He told the NY Times, “”In Texas for the last few years we’ve been driving down both the crime rate and the incarceration rate.”
He added, “And it’s not just Texas. South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas and Ohio in the past year or so have done major reforms. These are certainly not liberal states. That is significant.”
It is a lesson perhaps for Yolo County, which is one of the highest in the state in incarceration rates, despite a relatively low crime rate.
Texas is, in fact, not alone. There appear to be two critical trends that have made prison sentencing reform more palatable. First, the fact that crime rates have declined to 40-year lows, which the NY Times argued drains “the political potency from crime fears.”
At the same time, “The fiscal crunch has started to prompt a broad rethinking about alternatives to incarceration.”
The result is, “More than a dozen states in recent years have taken steps to reduce the costs to taxpayers of keeping so many criminals locked up.”
This reverses a trend that saw California in the 1980s and 1990s enact a series of mandatory minimum sentences, Three Strikes, and the even more imposing sentences for use of guns in the commission of the crime.
According to the NY Times, the result was that “the United States, with 5 percent of the world’s population, now accounts for 25 percent of the world’s inmates.”
The cost is tremendous, “Taxpayers are spending about $50 billion a year on state corrections systems – nearly twice as much, in inflation-adjusted terms, as expenditures in 1987, according to the Pew Center on the States.”
“Over the last few years there has been a dramatic shift in the policy and political landscape on the incarceration issues, and momentum is building,” Adam Gelb, the director of a corrections policy project at the Pew Center on the States, told the NY Times.
A new movement has emerged led by several prominent conservatives, most notably Edwin Meese, who served as attorney general in the Reagan Administration.
The Times reported, “He is part of a campaign, called ‘Right on Crime,’ which was begun last December to lend weight to what it calls the ‘conservative case for reform.’ “
“I’d call it a careful refining of the process,” Mr. Meese told the NY Times. “Most of us who are involved in this are very much in favor of high incarceration of serious habitual offenders. The whole idea is getting the right people in prison, and for those people for whom there is evidence that chances of recidivism are less, to work with those people.”
The Times reports, “Other Republican affiliates of the group include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Grover Norquist, an antitax activist; Asa Hutchinson, a former director of the Drug Enforcement Administration; and William J. Bennett, a former White House ‘drug czar.’ “
Some interesting names, particularly Mr. Bennett, long a proponent of the war on drugs.
It is not all victory, as a number of states have cut spending on re-entry programs and some have suspended or revoked programs that allowed well-behaved inmates to earn early parole.
The ACLU has been pushing what they call a “Smart Reform,” which lays out ways to reduce incarceration rates and costs while protecting criminals.
Their report released earlier this week, highlights six traditionally “tough on crime” states – Texas, Mississippi, Kansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Ohio – that recently passed significant bipartisan reforms to reduce their prison populations and budgets.
“In the past few years, the public and policymakers across the political spectrum have started to recognize that criminal justice reform is both necessary and politically viable. Lawmakers have steadily become interested in alternatives to incarceration that have proven to produce more effective public safety outcomes (‘evidence-based’ policies),” the report says.
“In the past few years, the public and policymakers across the political spectrum have started to recognize that criminal justice reform is both necessary and politically viable. Lawmakers have steadily become interested in alternatives to incarceration that have proven to produce more effective public safety outcomes (‘evidence-based’ policies),” it continues.
The sense has always been that tougher penalties mean less crime. Moreover, many have argued that the lower crimes rates are the result of harsher sentencing. However, many researchers argue that drops in crimes rates have more to do with demographic trends.
Critical to this trend, however, is economic crisis and state budget crunches that have “forced many to finally realize the economic necessity of and reasoning behind reducing this country’s unnecessary overreliance on prisons.”
“Fiscal prudence has produced new allies who agree that the nation’s addiction to incarceration is bad public policy. The need for financial austerity has created an unprecedented opening for advocates to promote fair and more effective criminal justice policies that protect public safety, reduce recidivism, keep communities intact, and move away from our overreliance on incarceration, all while saving taxpayer dollars,” the report continues.
Reports the ACLU, “Recent reform efforts in several states have undermined the erroneous and misguided notion that mass incarceration is necessary to protect our public safety. States like New York, which depopulated its prisons by 20% from 1999 to 2009, and Texas, which has stabilized its prison population growth since 2007, are presently experiencing the lowest state crime rates in decades.”
But as Vanita Gupta, the deputy legal director of the ACLU notes, the movement is fraught with fragility.
Ms. Gupta notes, “Statistics-based arguments had historically fared poorly in the political arena when countered by anecdotes of specific crimes.”
Indeed, we see it all of the time on these pages, people unwilling to take small measures to save money. One area that many states have moved into is reduction of the penalties for non-violent and simple drug possession cases.
Another area for reform, however, is toning down charges and more willingness to plea bargain. The recent murder case we reported on remains a good example. A simple plea agreement in a single case could save taxpayers $40,000 to $50,000. Perhaps more, if it eliminates the need for an appeal.
The difference in the sentence in the Mendoza case would have been 15 to life rather than life without parole. It means taking a chance that a parole board might at some point release this individual.
In a single case, you can always argue that the money is well spent to protect the public, but across a state, single cases add up to millions in added court costs that could be better spent at prevention.
For the first time, the fiscal crisis is leading to a group of policy makers who are willing to set aside the fear that releasing some inmates, and lowering the sentences for others, will lead to more crime. They are moving toward ways to reduce the incarceration rate without causing crime rates to rise.
While we may focus our efforts on Yolo County, this issue is being discussed across the nation, and some of the more unlikely states are leading the way.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Very interesting. First tough on crime, then tough on taxes. Can’t have it both ways.
I don’t think this would have made any difference for Mr. Mendoza. (“Shot your wife, go to prison…forever.”)
Where do the savings for plea agreement come from?
“”In the past few years, the public and policymakers across the political spectrum have started to recognize that criminal justice reform is both necessary and politically viable. Lawmakers have steadily become interested in alternatives to incarceration that have proven to produce more ef fective public safety outcomes (‘evidence-based’ policies),”
For decades politicians, DAs, judges and police chiefs have been using the “tough on crime” campaign to scare people into voting for them. We have been sold the idea that every petty criminal needs to be locked up to keep society safe. Instead we have been redirecting our hard earned tax dollars away from building infrastructure and educating our children to building prisons and paying prison guards unbelievable salaries.We change people from being taxpayers to tax burdens when we have a system that just wants to lock them up instead of trying to reform them. It’s sad that change to this system is only coming because of budget deficits, but at least change is coming.
“Can’t have it both ways. “
That implies that the two are mutually exclusive.
“Where do the savings for plea agreement come from?”
I figured the billable hours for the defense attorney, prosecution, bailiff, court staff, Judge, etc. added up to at least $40,000 perhaps more. Plus whatever the appellate attorney charges to write an appellate brief and the appellate court uses to render a decision.
[quote]On Friday a reader commenting on the Judicial Watch article about a man convicted of first degree murder of his wife wrote, “The guy is guilty of first degree murder for the public murder of his wife and you are complaining about the 5 digit cost of his trial! Have you totally lost it? When the cost of trying capital cases is more important then [sic] justice we have completely lost our bearings as a society.”
As if to answer that question, on Saturday, the New York Times published an article that shows a reversal in the trend of “tough on crime” polices, even in conservative states.
Wrote the NY Times, “While liberals have long complained that harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses like drug possession are unjust, the push to overhaul penal policies has been increasingly embraced by elected officials in some of the most conservative states in the country. And for a different reason: to save money.”[/quote]
There is a glaring fallacy here in reasoning. The commenter was talking about a case of vicious purposeful murder. That is a far cry from reducing sentences for nonviolent offenses. The two don’t compare.
[quote]Another area for reform, however, is toning down charges and more willingness to plea bargain. The recent murder case we reported on remains a good example. A simple plea agreement in a single case could save taxpayers $40,000 to $50,000. Perhaps more, if it eliminates the need for an appeal.
The difference in the sentence in the Mendoza case would have been 15 to life rather than life without parole. It means taking a chance that a parole board might at some point release this individual.
In a single case, you can always argue that the money is well spent to protect the public, but across a state, single cases add up to millions in added court costs that could be better spent at prevention.[/quote]
Again, very poor logic. The case in point was vicious domestic violence, in which the victim was gunned down in cold blood in front of co-workers. To say that the defense’s offer of 15 years to life should have been agreed to by the prosecution to save $25,000 in court costs is absolutely outrageous. To take your argument to its logical conclusion would be to have the prosecution agree to every defense offer of a plea bargain to save the state money so there would be no need for trials. This, of course, would be a preposterous position, but the one you are essentially taking. Each case has to be judged on its individual merits. The defense does plenty of over-reaching…
Just for added context, I was listening to a discussion of the recent riots on London, England. A British commentator made the following comment, paraphrased a bit bc I don’t remember the exact words: “Social liberalism is ruining this country. There seems to be more concern for the criminals than for the victims of crime. Kids grow up these days thinking the gov’t owes them something, they don’t have to work for anything bc the gov’t will provide it. And when the gov’t doesn’t give them everything they want, then they resort to taking it, which is what you are seeing now.” Food for thought…
“There is a glaring fallacy here in reasoning. The commenter was talking about a case of vicious purposeful murder. That is a far cry from reducing sentences for nonviolent offenses. The two don’t compare.”
Money saved in one area, can go to another area. We are not talking about letting the guy out of prison. Most likely the individual even with a 15 year to life sentence would be in prison for at least 30 years if not life.
“To take your argument to its logical conclusion would be to have the prosecution agree to every defense offer of a plea bargain to save the state money so there would be no need for trials. “
You are ignoring several key factors. First, in this case, there was virtually no dispute between the two sides as to what happened or what the punishment should be. The prosecutor offered the maximum penalty, which meant that the defense had nothing to lose by taking it to trial. That rarely occurs. Usually there is a much wider dispute of the facts. So I disagree that that that is the logical conclusion. However, in a case where both sides know that the guy is guilty of a very serious crime, there ought to be more effort made to avoid a trial.
[quote]First, in this case, there was virtually no dispute between the two sides as to what happened or what the punishment should be.[/quote]
Apparently there was disagreement enough on what the punishment should be that the defendant chose to take the matter to trial! The prosecution was not about to take a chance on the possibility a cold blooded killer would get out in 15 years, or ever. Good for the prosecution. The victim’s life was worth more than 15 years of a man’s life, or the $25,000 it cost to prosecute this vicious killer, who decided all by himself “If I can’t have her, then no one can”.
The victim’s life is worth more than any punishment, so throw out that argument.
[quote]Money saved in one area, can go to another area. We are not talking about letting the guy out of prison. Most likely the individual even with a 15 year to life sentence would be in prison for at least 30 years if not life. [/quote]
I repeat:[quote]There is a glaring fallacy here in reasoning. The commenter was talking about a case of vicious purposeful murder. That is a far cry from reducing sentences for nonviolent offenses. The two don’t compare. [/quote]
The context of your article had to do with reducing sentences for nonviolent offenders. If your position is that the prosecution should always accept whatever the defense offers in a plea bargaining session to save money on trials, then I don’t think you will have too many people supporting that view.
Elaine, we simply disagree on this. I look at ways we can save money in the court system. I believe it is reasonable to avoid some trials where there are not a huge degree of difference in the view of the facts and the punishment. A 15 to life sentence for as you call a vicious murder, is probably not much different from LWOP.
[quote]A 15 to life sentence for as you call a vicious murder, is probably not much different from LWOP.[/quote]
You don’t call the purposeful unprovoked shot gun murder of a helpless victim in front of co-workers vicious? Really? What’s your definition of vicious? From an online dictionary:
[quote]1. Having the nature of vice; evil, immoral, or depraved.
2. Given to vice, immorality, or depravity.
3. Spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip.
4. Disposed to or characterized by violent or destructive behavior. See Synonyms at cruel.
5. Marked by an aggressive disposition; savage. Used chiefly of animals.
6. Severe or intense; fierce: a vicious storm.
7. Faulty, imperfect, or otherwise impaired by defects or a defect: a forced, vicious style of prose.
8. Impure; foul.[/quote]
How in the world does this crime not fit into the category of vicious?
Secondly, the stark difference between 15YTL and LWOP is that in the first case, there is a possibility the killer could get out in 15 years. In the second case, he can never get out of prison to do this to an innocent member of the public. I call that a HUGE DIFFERENCE. If you cannot see the difference, I can’t help you…
Elaine
This looks to me like one of your often stated,” if you don’t like the law, change it”. My suggestion would be for a modification to LWOP, that could be modified it the individual were demonstrated to be so incapacitated, by age or illness, as to be harmless. This would have the potential for saving money on both ends ( trial vs plea bargain) and with regard to needless incarceration expences.
DMG “Another area for reform, however, is toning down charges and more willingness to plea bargain. The recent murder case we reported on remains a good example. A simple plea agreement in a single case could save taxpayers $40,000 to $50,000”
DMG “I figured the billable hours for the defense attorney, prosecution, bailiff, court staff, Judge, etc. for a four day trial added up to at least $40,000 perhaps more.”
But save it how? Would we need fewer, DPDs, DDAs, judges, bailiffs and court staff if all sides were able to find common ground more often? Is that the argument? I’m not sure how a single case not going to trial could effectively save taxpayer dollars.
Obviously there is a cost associated with criminal trials, but the salaries of all these folks are paid regardless of a trial, aren’t they? There are getting paid to be somewhere and do something, so is the argument that increased (or more reasonable) plea bargaining in general will decrease the number of trials, thereby decreasing the need for as many DPDs, DDAs, judges, bailiffs and court staff, which means fewer salaries being paid by taxpayer dollars?
Otherwise, there is no such savings in a single case for lack of a trial. All these professionals involved in that murder case were going to get paid the same trial or no trial, right? Not needing as many of those professionals, those paid for by taxpayer dollars, is the main saver.
Forgot to add that if this is the case, maybe all parties involved in the deal-making process have an incentive to push cases to trial…job security. That’s a cynical way of looking at this, though.
Is the percentage of cases pushed to trial in Yolo County much higher than the state or national average?
I think many Californians (including me) would support a revision like that of Texas, for nonviolent offenders. What about increased use of robust ankle bracelet tracking devices (expensive; but cheaper than imprisonment)?
Also modify the 3 strikes law so that the 3rd strike only applies for a violent offence; I think a ballot measure with a revision like this would pass the popular vote in California.
[i][quote]”Can’t have it both ways. ”
“That implies that the two are mutually exclusive.”[/quote][/i] They are at the state and county levels. In California, I figure “tough on crime? It’s tough on schools and parks and everything else.” Thanks to deficit spending, however, budget considerations don’t get in the way imprisoning lots and lots of people in federal institutions.
[i][quote]”While liberals have long complained that harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses like drug possession are unjust, the push to overhaul penal policies has been increasingly embraced by elected officials in some of the most conservative states in the country.”[/quote][/i]I really don’t think this comes close to being an “as if to answer that question” article (the question being “Have you totally lost it?”) I’d say this Texas example better summarizes the [u]Times[/u] story:[i][quote]”…the State Legislature decided to steer nonviolent offenders into drug treatment and to expand re-entry programs designed to help recently released inmates avoid returning to custody.”[/quote][/i]Seems as though this program can’t be compared to the way we handle violent first-degree murderers.[i][quote]”Most of us who are involved in this are very much in favor of high incarceration of serious habitual offenders.”[/quote][/i]Sounds as though these dudes support a “three strikes” approach, even while looking to save money now on the minor offenders whom they previously wanted imprisoned.
Even though some of the dozen states that took steps to reduce incarceration for minor crimes ended up back-peddling, California certainly could look to these experiments for alternative approaches.
However, I’ll bet not many of the conservative states listed in the [u]Times[/u] article would support your position on the Mendoza case. Rather, they’d be closer to Elaine’s (if not pushing for him to end up on death row), I’d guess.
Again, while this story supports your views on drug crime and punishment, etc., it doesn’t do anything for your Mendoza argument.
I’m also curious if you’re being accurate about the difference in punishments for his crimes. Are you including his potential sentences for discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury, and attempted kidnapping? Also, do you give any consideration for him fleeing the scene and country and having to be extradited from Mexico?
You seem to be saying we should ignore what he really did and give him a plea bargain on one lesser (than 1st degree) charge and a 15-year minimum sentence. Then you support your view by suggesting “minimum 15 years” really means 30 with only your attendance at [u]?[/u] parole hearings where that was being considered.
[quote]You seem to be saying we should ignore what he really did and give him a plea bargain on one lesser (than 1st degree) charge and a 15-year minimum sentence. Then you support your view by suggesting “minimum 15 years” really means 30 with only your attendance at ? parole hearings where that was being considered.[/quote]
Just think. If this perp had been given 15 years to life, the victim’s family would have to show up at the 15 year mark, and argue that year and every year thereafter that this guy not get paroled. He got exactly what he deserved. Now he cannot get out, he cannot kill anyone else (except perhaps in prison), and the victim’s family is free to forget about him to whatever extent is possible. This case is not a good example of prison reform for lighter sentences. And none of the articles cited talk about plea bargaining in such a way as has been suggested here for violent offenders. The reformers were speaking of non-violent offenders, which is a whole different ball game.
[quote]I think many Californians (including me) would support a revision like that of Texas, for nonviolent offenders. What about increased use of robust ankle bracelet tracking devices (expensive; but cheaper than imprisonment)?
Also modify the 3 strikes law so that the 3rd strike only applies for a violent offence; I think a ballot measure with a revision like this would pass the popular vote in California. [/quote]
In appropriate cases, that may make a lot of sense.
[quote]This looks to me like one of your often stated,” if you don’t like the law, change it”. My suggestion would be for a modification to LWOP, that could be modified it the individual were demonstrated to be so incapacitated, by age or illness, as to be harmless. This would have the potential for saving money on both ends ( trial vs plea bargain) and with regard to needless incarceration expences.[/quote]
I’m not convinced an elderly inmate is necessarily harmless. It doesn’t take much to load a gun and fire it. As I told you in another comment, it appeared a 90 year old might be capable of doing it while drunk.
[quote]erm: The victim’s life was worth more than 15 years of a man’s life, or the $25,000 it cost to prosecute this vicious killer, who decided all by himself “If I can’t have her, then no one can”.
dmg: The victim’s life is worth more than any punishment, so throw out that argument.[/quote]
If the victim’s life is worth more than any punishment, then why in heaven’s name are you arguing that the county should have accepted a 15YTL sentence to save $25,000? If you allow a cold blooded killer like this get off w a 15YTL sentence, the message it sends to victims of domestic violence is their life is only worth 15 years of the perp’s life. The victim’s family is going to be sentenced to showing up at the perp’s parole hearing after the 15 years passes, to argue that the perp not be allowed out on parole. Why should the victim’s family have to go through this for the rest of their lives? And by the way, you never said how old the defendant was…
The point of David’s post here is that there is a cost-benefit argument binding conservatives to the cause of sentencing reform. While I agree in general that we should be more pragmatic and business minded with respect to sentencing, Elaine hit the nail on the head with her comments about England. There we have evidence of the cost of too liberal sentencing. We need to consider the slipperly slope of lawlessness. The heart hurt of tough sentencing may be something we need to learn to accept in a free society.
SM:
You are correct and that is the point I guess I did not make well enough, that if it were a matter of a single case then obviously the savings would not be realized. The costs are therefore opportunity costs of trying this case over others and the presumption that we may need more employees if we have more trials.
I don’t have direct figures on trials per capita, what I do know is what Tracie Olson said last spring, that the number of trials have doubled in the last five years, that crime has not risen over that time, and that there is not a back up of cases that there once was, which to her thinking meant too many cases went to trial.
JustSaying: I think you are falling into the trap that the only way to be tough on crime is to have long sentences and arrest more people, I just don’t think that’s the only approach.
“If this perp had been given 15 years to life, the victim’s family would have to show up at the 15 year mark, and argue that year and every year thereafter that this guy not get paroled.”
I was under the impression that they don’t come up for parole every year.
Yeah, I’m right:
“Inmates serving life sentences become eligible for parole hearings by statute one year prior to their minimum eligible parole date (MEPD). At the hearing, the panel considers all relevant and reliable information in the individual case in order to determine whether the inmate is suitable for release. If an inmate is found unsuitable for parole, statutory law requires that the next hearing be set 15, 10, 3, 5 or 7 years in the future. An inmate who is denied parole may, in three year intervals, request that his or her hearing be moved to an earlier date, based on a change of circumstances or new information that establishes a reasonable likelihood that consideration of public safety does not require the additional period of incarceration imposed by the denial length that was issued.”
Source ([url]http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/lifer_parole_process.html[/url])
So here’s an example and this is a 35 year old who was sentence as a 16 year old:
“After deliberating for 30 minutes, the commissioners found that Rigbsy was not suitable for parole because of the commitment offense, his prior criminality, his unstable social history, his poor record while in prison including his gang affiliation, and his very limited parole plans. He will not be eligible for another parole hearing for five years. “
“If you allow a cold blooded killer like this get off w a 15YTL sentence, the message it sends to victims of domestic violence is their life is only worth 15 years of the perp’s life.”
What is the average length of time an individual sentence 15 to life actually serves, I’ll bet you real money, it’s at least twice 15.
This is an old study but you get the point:
“According to a May 2004 report by the Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., research and advocacy group, average time served by those sentenced to life in prison has also gone up, from 21.2 years in 1991 to 29 years by 1997. The study authors emphasize that “In contrast to popular imagery which sometimes portrays lifers as serving short prison terms, the average life sentence today results in nearly three decades incarceration.””
Another study found that 28% of “lifers” will never get parole.
“You seem to be saying we should ignore what he really did and give him a plea bargain on one lesser (than 1st degree) charge and a 15-year minimum sentence.”
Isn’t that what a plea bargain always does – it is a deal to save time and money on the expense and uncertainty of a trial for both sides. Usually the DA is asked to drop a lot more than it would in this case, but then again usually there is a greater chance of the guy walking than in this case.
DMG,
“The costs are therefore opportunity costs of trying this case over others and the presumption that we may need more employees if we have more trials.”
“I don’t have direct figures on trials per capita, what I do know is what Tracie Olson said last spring, that the number of trials have doubled in the last five years, that crime has not risen over that time, and that there is not a back up of cases that there once was, which to her thinking meant too many cases went to trial.”
thinking about that argument, re: fewer trials means fewer employees, it may be worth looking into your post here. What has the corresponding figure been in each dept. (DA, PD, Court, etc) with the doubling of tried cases? If the number of cases going to trial has doubled, yet the number of DDAs, DPDs, judges, court staff and bailiff has remained steady or perhaps even decreased, then what does that say about this argument?
[quote]thinking about that argument, re: fewer trials means fewer employees, it may be worth looking into your post here. What has the corresponding figure been in each dept. (DA, PD, Court, etc) with the doubling of tried cases? If the number of cases going to trial has doubled, yet the number of DDAs, DPDs, judges, court staff and bailiff has remained steady or perhaps even decreased, then what does that say about this argument? [/quote]
Excellent point! It means the argument does not hold water.
To dmg: I don’t care if the family has to go to the perp’s parole hearing every 3 years, 5 years, 7 years or whatever. It means they have to relive the death of their loved one over and over again. They end up with a life sentence of making sure to show up to parole hearings of the perp to make sure he doesn’t get out and kill again. Why should they have to go through any of that?
Secondly, your point about 15YTL usually ending up 30 years is not well taken either, and does nothing to address my point. All you are saying is the victim’s life is only worth 30 years of the perp’s life, assuming he would get out in 30 years, yet I showed you examples when defendant’s have gotten out after 15 years on a 15YTL sentence. You have no way of knowing what would happen in any particular case.
[quote][i]”…that the number of trials have doubled in the last five years, that crime has not risen over that time..”[/i][/quote]So, here’s a way to test your theory on trial costs. If the number of courtroom related employees (including public defenders) has doubled in the past five years, you may have a point. Another way: If the budgets for DA, courts, PD have doubled in past five years, you may have a point.
What’s the basis for claiming there’s any savings to be had by more plea bargaining? These still take significant amount of PD and DA time and other costs, plus some court costs. What per cent of cases do you feel have to be plea bargained to eliminate even one courtroom or judge or DA/PD employee?
[quote]Isn’t that what a plea bargain always does – it is a deal to save time and money on the expense and uncertainty of a trial for both sides. [/quote]
This is where I think your logic and knowledge of the legal system is going off track:
1) Not all cases are suitable for plea bargaining.
2) If the defense offer is unreasonable, the prosecution does not have to agree to the defense’s offer; should not agree to an unreasonable offer; must exercise their independent judgment as to whether the case is suitable for plea bargain and if the bargain offered by the defense is acceptable at any level.
3) “Saving the time and money of a trial” is an illusory concept. The DA’s Office has a specific budget within which to work. They can only facilitate so many trials within the budget given. It seems the DA is able to manage its trial calendar within its budget thus far.
In the DA’s opinion, the case where the man shot his wife to death in front of co-workers was not suitable for a 15YTL sentence the defense was offering. I agree with the DA, so did the jury, so did the judge. You were not on the jury, you are biased against the DA, you don’t get to decide. You certainly have the right to hold the opinion this guy should have gotten off with a 15YTL sentence, but my guess (and it is only a guess) is very few would agree w this view for this particular case because of the heinous circumstances…
[quote]JustSaying: I think you are falling into the trap that the only way to be tough on crime is to have long sentences and arrest more people, I just don’t think that’s the only approach.[/quote]
Again, this is where you are going off the legal rails. Each case has to be judged on its merits. Some cases are not suitable for plea bargaining, not all plea bargains offered by the defense are reasonable, the prosecution ultimately has to make a decision based on what s/he thinks about the circumstances of the case in terms of public safety, the conception of fairness and justice, and many other considerations.
I don’t think anyone is arguing here that low level crime of the nonviolent variety should be punishable by throwing such defendants in jail for long prison terms and throwing away the key. Succinctly put, it has to do with the “proportionality” of the crime. As you pointed out, it makes no sense to put a “cheese thief” away for a long time; but it does make sense to put a cold-blooded killer away forever so he never kills another again (except perhaps in prison – which I would prefer not be the case, but it happens).
[quote][i]”You seem to be saying we should ignore what he really did and give him a plea bargain on one lesser (than 1st degree) charge and a 15-year minimum sentence.”
“Isn’t that what a plea bargain always does – it is a deal to save time and money on the expense and uncertainty of a trial for both sides.”[/i][/quote]Sorry, I wasn’t clear here. I was asking about whether you’re offering us a fair accounting of Mr. Mendoza’s charges and the potential penalties he faced. I’m assuming you haven’t and wanted you to clarify that.
Also, why do you think Mendoza a worthy candidate for such an act of public mercy? Has he turned his life around? Does his attorney say he’s the most remorseful murderer he’s ever represented?
Are there extenuating circumstances about the crime that suggests to you that a lesser penalty is appropriate for this person? Is there something about the victim that you feel makes her less worthy of the DA pursuing first degree?
I just can’t figure out why you think the Mendoza case should get the treatment you’re recommending. Of course, I never did understand why you fixated on the legal questioning of the father who raped his daughter for many years, either.
How can you possibly use this case as one that would give plea bargaining a good name? You point out that there wasn’t much expense and almost no uncertainty here. Yet, you note here that a “plea bargain always does…save time and money.”
After all the feedback, are you really still holding up the [u]Times[/u] article on [u]minor offenses[/u] to support a 15-year minimum for Mendoza?
[quote][i]”JustSaying: I think you are falling into the trap that the only way to be tough on crime is to have long sentences and arrest more people, I just don’t think that’s the only approach.”[/i][/quote]I see that Elaine already has taken on part of the problems with this comment. I’ll just concentrate on two questions. What did I say to suggest to you that I’d ended up in this “trap”? Where did you ever get the idea that I think “the only way to be tough on crime” is imprisoning more people for longer times?
You’ve provided me with an extreme, unreasonable, inflexible philosophy and generously given yourself the openness of mind to realize there might be other options. On what basis?
Elaine: We simply disagree on which cases those are.
JS: “Sorry, I wasn’t clear here. I was asking about whether you’re offering us a fair accounting of Mr. Mendoza’s charges and the potential penalties he faced. I’m assuming you haven’t and wanted you to clarify that. “
I gave you the direct statement from the DA’s office on his charges. So I’m still unclear as to what you are asking.
“Also, why do you think Mendoza a worthy candidate for such an act of public mercy? Has he turned his life around? Does his attorney say he’s the most remorseful murderer he’s ever represented? “
I don’t see it as an act of mercy, I see it as basically the same result, we would end up with him serving all or most of his life in prison with a 15 to life conviction and we would have saved money on the court expenses.
“Are there extenuating circumstances about the crime that suggests to you that a lesser penalty is appropriate for this person? Is there something about the victim that you feel makes her less worthy of the DA pursuing first degree? “
This one is strictly fiscal.
“What did I say to suggest to you that I’d ended up in this “trap”? Where did you ever get the idea that I think “the only way to be tough on crime” is imprisoning more people for longer times? “
You stated that you cannot have it both say, that to me suggested you thought there was some tension between tough on crime and alternative sentencing.
Ah hah, another lesson on making light of murder. When I said: “Very interesting. First tough on crime, then tough on taxes. Can’t have it both ways,” I was referring to them Texans who locked up as many folks as possible without regard to costs–and now find themselves (more) concerned with taxes. Pick one, I was saying.
I’ve repeatedly agreed with you and others who want to treat low level offenses without prison terms, change “three strikes,’ provide treatment/education and let judges decide appropriate (shorter), case-by-case sentences for non-violent offenses rather than being tied to politicized minimums.
Of course, the article and most of the discussion here deals with you trying to fit a violent, horrendous, intended murder into an entirely different category in order to criticize the DA for not offering a lesser plea bargain in order to save the cost of lights operating in the court for a week.
I’m trying to suggest that this kind of unreasonable argument detracts from the worthiness of your cause (reducing sentences for non-violent crimes). But, obviously, you’re not having any of it….never give an inch! [quote][i]”I gave you the direct statement from the DA’s office on his charges. So I’m still unclear as to what you are asking.”[/i][/quote]When you describe the original penalties Mendoza faced, do you include those for his other (firearms and kidnapping) crimes? I’m saying these would affect plea considerations, as well as might his flight and extradition.
P.S.–It would help if you’d attribute claims about plea bargains offered/not offered in specific cases. Just saying the defendant would have gone for a certain agreement, but the DA wouldn’t do it, really requires more than just your speculation.
If the defense or prosecution gives you this type of information, there’s absolutely no reason to keep your source secret. If they’re giving you factual information–and not just playing you for effect–they should be happy to be quoted. After all, it’s obvious whom you’re [u]implying[/u] is the source–is there any reason (other than to mislead readers about the truth of the statement) not to attribute it?
With its mandatory sentencing laws and prosecution mad DA’s, California has filled its prisons faster than Red China or Stalinist Russia. It is totally insane and won’t stop until the bludgeon of mandatory sentencing is taken away from prosecutors. In Sacramento, offenses are routinely criminalized and prosecuted in line with what will secure the most federal grant money, not what will keep the public safe. 99% of cases prosecuted are plea bargained; in a fair number of cases innocent people are coerced to take plea bargains rather than risk long prison sentences and the DA’s office can then rack up another conviction to add to its impressive statistics. Also, California is second in the nation in stockholder held, for-profit prisons where inmates can be put to work for 25 cents per hour.
None of this is about justice or public safety; it is a politically motivated numbers game at the expense of the taxpayers. Additionally, the prison guards union is so powerful in influencing policy, it has an office in the California statehouse.
To me, this is corruption with a BIG C and until it is addressed, we will not have reform in California.
Memary10,
“99% of cases prosecuted are plea bargained; in a fair number of cases innocent people are coerced to take plea bargains rather than risk long prison sentences.”
What to you is a “fair number of cases?” According to CA Sen. Leno, as low as 150 and as high as 1500 are possibly wrongly imprisoned out of CA’s 750K+ prison population. What number of those do you think were coerced into bargain as opposed to convicted by a jury?
ERM,
“Excellent point! It means the argument does not hold water.”
Well, it doesn’t prove the point wrong that a substantial decrease in cases litigated would mean fewer public employee salaries paid out be taxpayers. Although, I doubt that the budgets and staff of the involved govt entities have increased significantly compared to the increase in trials.
If memory serves, Judge White has been moved from felonies to juvi and her spot has remained vacant. So are they cranking out twice as many trials as they were several years ago with fewer judges presiding over felony trials?
One thing that I have not heard mentioned is the potential of plea bargaining reducing the amount of time lost to business in productivity from
workers needed for jury trials. I am just floating this as a trial balloon since it occurred to me as I was reading today’s post. what thoughts have you ?
“thinking about that argument, re: fewer trials means fewer employees, it may be worth looking into your post here. What has the corresponding figure been in each dept. (DA, PD, Court, etc) with the doubling of tried cases?”
This is a good question. One possibility is that more trials means that the county uses more contract attorneys for defense. This is typically known as the conflict counsel that are used whenever there is a conflict for the public defenders office, whether it is multi-defendant cases or other conflicts. Unlike PDs that are on salary, contract attorneys are hourly and the contract is based on hours. So that is a clear area of expense.
JS:
Thanks for explaining the comment makes sense now.
There is a difference obviously in the low level issue versus the plea bargaining issue. I see an area in which we can save money, particularly now, and I zoom towards it. Sometimes you are going to have to, in this day and age take a lighter punishment in order to avoid trial and save money.
As for attribution, I understand your point, I hope you appreciate that is a far more complicated issue than it appears that I have to rethink.
Superfluous: I think the number that Leno gave was far too low. I think it is much higher than that IF you count the number of people who were “overconvicted” (i.e. convicted of a more serious crime than they actually committed) and not just the number who are completely innocent.
“So are they cranking out twice as many trials as they were several years ago with fewer judges presiding over felony trials? “
It will be interesting to see what happens with trials this year. First, the Topete trial has caused some interesting scheduling problems. Second, there is a huge back up in the long cause trial courtroom, Judge Mock’s. That has forced several trials be heard on an alternating week schedule (such as Kalah and originally the Warren/ Warren trial). Last year there were two long cause courtrooms, the other was Judge Fall. We shall see what happens there.
But one thing that has happened is that they have eased the backlog which means fewer people held at Monroe who are waiting for years for a trial.
[quote]IF you count the number of people who were “overconvicted” (i.e. convicted of a more serious crime than they actually committed)[/quote]
What? Overconvicted is that a new legal phrase?
DMG “One possibility is that more trials means that the county uses more contract attorneys for defense. This is typically known as the conflict counsel that are used whenever there is a conflict for the public defenders office, whether it is multi-defendant cases or other conflicts. Unlike PDs that are on salary, contract attorneys are hourly and the contract is based on hours. So that is a clear area of expense.”
So there may not be enough DPDs to handle the increase in trials and the conflict attorneys must pick up the slack? Does this assume that DPDs are not capable of handling the increase or that doing so would result in inadequate representation? It’s not known if this has happened, right?
DMG “I think the number that Leno gave was far too low. I think it is much higher than that IF you count the number of people who were “overconvicted” (i.e. convicted of a more serious crime than they actually committed) and not just the number who are completely innocent.”
So then you agree with his estimate, but disagree with what qualifies as “wrongfully convicted?” IOW, it’s low because you believe his estimate fails to include the “overconvicted?”
DMG “Second, there is a huge back up in the long cause trial courtroom, Judge Mock’s.”
DMG “But one thing that has happened is that they have eased the backlog which means fewer people held at Monroe who are waiting for years for a trial”
Is it predicted that this backup in the “long cause trial courtroom” will effect the overall backlog that has been eased over the years?
“Overconvicted is that a new legal phrase? “
In other words, if I was convicted of possession for sale when in fact I just was possessing an illegal drug, that could be an overconviction. I wouldn’t be innocent, but I would be wrongly convicted of the greater charge. I have seen a number of cases where the person was not innocent of committing a crime, but they had not committed the crime that they were convicted of.
“So then you agree with his estimate, but disagree with what qualifies as “wrongfully convicted?” IOW, it’s low because you believe his estimate fails to include the “overconvicted?””
I think it’s low anyway. The problem is that our ability to estimate is simply on the basis of cases that have DNA or other reasons for exoneration. I talked to one attorney who thought the number was 50%. That’s too high from my view.
Give you an example, the gross vehicular manslaughter case. There were crimes committed there, but I’m not convinced that the individual is guilty of the top crime. So she would not be an innocent person should she be sentenced to prison, but she could be overconvicted.
I don’t know what the number is from wrongful convictions, but I believe it is a lot higher than we think.
To dmg: The problem is that just about every defendant has been “overconvicted” according to your world view…