VANGUARD COURT WATCH: The Human Side of the Criminal Justice System

By Vanguard Court Watch Interns

Steven Lopez, an inmate at the Yolo County Jail, had his sentencing hearing this past Friday, January 11^th. He has been charged on four counts, mainly pertaining to theft and unauthorized use of vehicles. While the counts he has been charged with are not something to be particularly curious about, this case embodies the stigma all too often placed upon these “criminals.”

While in custody, Mr. Lopez started hysterically crying to Judge Mock of Department 3. Although I am certain this is not uncommon in the courtroom, it is cases like this that shed light on the indisputable truth that many people seem to forget – that those in custody are human just like the rest of us.

While his sentencing was being pronounced, Mr. Lopez began apologizing for all that he had done in the past, especially the harm done to all of the victims involved.

I am not clear on all of the details of his case, as this was just a sentencing hearing, but he went on to explain that he has made many mistakes and that, above all else, he has genuinely learned from them.

In his 32 years of life, he finally achieved his chief goal – having his son in 2008. He is a father for the first time and, while he has been reminded repeatedly of his mistakes, he understands that he cannot change what has already been done.

Mr. Lopez spoke about how he merely wants to have a second chance to live the life he has always wanted, and to provide for his son by giving him something that he never had – a father.

Mr. Johansson, the deputy public defender on the case, had to step in to say a few words because Mr. Lopez could not physically speak at this point. Mr. Johansson brought up that the prosecutor said in a prior appearance that Mr. Lopez was “not proportional, has no prospects, no remorse, no family support…”

He said how very unfitting that statement was, and that Mr.Lopez is noticeably remorseful and has wonderful family support from his fiancée, mother – and most importantly, his son. His grandmother, with whom Mr. Lopez was extraordinarily close, recently passed away while he was in custody.

Mr. Johansson noted that all of the promises he made to his grandmother prior to her passing are something Mr. Lopez has been passionately working on.

When Mr. Lopez began to speak again, he said that letting his family down will be the hardest thing he will ever have to go through. His fiancée writes him often, saying how very much their son misses his father.

The deputy district attorney on the case had more than a few words to interject. She reminded the judge that Mr. Lopez has been in constant contact with the police since he was 18 years old and that this is simply how he moves within society.

Mr. Lopez, she said, “uses other people’s cars to get around and he does it for himself.”

She also made it a point to say that there is indeed a difference between two key words: remorse and regret.

Since this is the fourth time he has been convicted in the last 10 years, the DA claimed that this is reason enough to believe that Mr. Lopez has no remorse for the victims and that there has been anything but a lesson learned.

Her main point: he should not be allowed back into society with other law-abiding citizens.

While the DA could have stopped while she was ahead, she went on to bring up his family.

It was not necessarily what she said, but the stark tone in her voice while saying it, that had such an impact.

She said that the defendant is anything but remorseful and that he has been doing the most harm to victims other than those he stole from – his family. She noted that if he really felt remorseful he would not keep hurting his family like this and what he actually feels is regret for getting caught.

Glancing at the defendant while she was making such remarks about the only people who have supported him through this all, he continued to cry and shake his head. She ended with saying that he simply cannot function within society and that he is not “safe when he is out.”

One thing I do know for certain is that those tears streaming down Mr. Lopez’s face were not for theatrical purposes. He is a human being with emotions and with the possibility to feel honestly sorry for those he has hurt.

While she may be right about the “constant” contact with the police he has had in his adult life, the bigger problem seems to be something else. He did not have a support system growing up and perhaps what he needs is a different kind of rehabilitation, besides being kept in prison where the DA so modestly claimed he “belongs.”

Some may argue that any old sob story is not necessarily a defense when the judge is considering sentencing, but that does not always hold true. However, the judicial system in this state, given mandatory sentencing law, allows for the judge in criminal cases in particular to hold only so much discretion to be used as his individual judgment tool.

With that said, Judge Mock took everything into consideration before his sentencing. He said that there are multiple factors of aggravation and no factors of mitigation that should apply in this case.

He said this because the defendant, Mr. Lopez, shows signs of sophistication. Judge Mock noted that the defendant does indeed have a lengthy criminal record and that it stands for itself.

There are two prior convictions and the law permits the judge to use those priors for several purposes. He can add time on to the sentencing because he holds that authority.  Even though recognizing that he has the authority and power to use that, the judge said, “I choose not to do that given the sophistication.”

Judge Mock sentenced him for the middle term and Mr. Lopez ended up with 6 years in Yolo County Jail – 2190 days in custody total. Overall, I would say the defense looked pleased with his sentencing, as did his fellow inmates present in the courtroom with him for other various cases. They looked him in the eye, as supportive as they could be, and said, “It’s not life,” suggesting that Judge’s Mock’s discretion played a pertinent role in this case.

Perhaps the overall takeaway from cases such as this one is that, beyond their criminal records, those in custody are individuals in this society, whether behind bars or not. They are not inherently evil and, more often than not, they deserve another chance to properly re-orient themselves with lives outside of their jail cell.

This is not to say that committing a crime should not be punishable by law, but that committing those crimes does not inevitably deem someone unsafe, or unable to function within society once released, as the DA in this case suggested.

Categories: