Addicted To Incarceration : A Federal Judge Reveals Shocking Truths About Federal Sentencing

[TwiceHorn 31433]

A law review article by a sitting federal district judge.  Very readable, and appalling, and a great history of the grand, disastrous federal experiment with "determinate" sentencing. 

Quote

The nation’s federal prisons are bursting at the seams with the offenders that I just described. The simple truth is that

Congress, the United States Sentencing Commission, and federal trial and appellate judges are addicted to incarceration.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=405072103003092093082084084090120098018009066012037092123121125089029095073113100108110101057026123124054119024102115015106103058005037041060014002021103064085101027042010007108118120093085031016092116115000001110023082075092009004012104093028003017&EXT=pdf

 

Joe Bob says twist and shout, check it out..

 

 

[XR4ticlone 122]

I just got done doing a jury panel...the option for intoxicated manslaughter...probation to 20 years per count.

Probation???  Are you fucking kidding me?  How is that even an option?

I understand that's State of Texas.  And there might well be over sentencing for some things...but that was a rude awakening for me as a tax payer. 

[LoneStarBiker 145]

For profit/corporation-owned prisons is bullshit, gotta keep those beds full.  The whole LE apparatus is geared to incarcerate as many as possible, so everybody from the cops, district attorneys, judges, etc. are in on the game. 

[DocZaius 65]

6 hours ago, LoneStarBiker said:

For profit/corporation-owned prisons is bullshit, gotta keep those beds full.  The whole LE apparatus is geared to incarcerate as many as possible, so everybody from the cops, district attorneys, judges, etc. are in on the game. 

Private prisons house less than 10% of all prisoners.  Not suggesting they're not a problem, but they're not as big an issue as they're made out to be.

Edited April 23, 2018 by DocZaius

[XYZ 2154]

1 hour ago, DocZaius said:

Private prisons house less than 10% of all prisoners.  Not suggesting they're not a problem, but they're not as big an issue as they're made out to be.

Just because they hold a small % of prisoners doesn’t mean that they are not a big issue. All they need to do is have a powerful enough lobbying arm. And they do.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

8 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

I just got done doing a jury panel...the option for intoxicated manslaughter...probation to 20 years per count.

Probation???  Are you fucking kidding me?  How is that even an option?

I understand that's State of Texas.  And there might well be over sentencing for some things...but that was a rude awakening for me as a tax payer. 

Because intoxication manslaughter is an accident, ultimately?  Yes a tragic accident.  And one made much more likely by the reckless actions of the defendant.  But an accident nonetheless, that might arise under a broad set of circumstances implicating greater and lesser culpability?

Is it any more or less worthy of a stiff sentence than, say, texting manslaughter, or drive like a dipshit manslaughter, or fiddling with the radio manslaughter, or getting your dick sucked manslaughter?  Oh?  There are no such offenses.  Hmmmm.  Well, that makes me MADD.

Edited April 23, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I saw some sad, sad results due to our federal sentencing schemes when I clerked.  

[bernorange 8359]

I remember reading the occasional news blurb about some creative sentence that Ted Poe had issued back in the day.  I guess this kind of thing doesn't happen anymore?

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/26/news/mn-43159

Of course, decriminalizing marijuana would alleviate a large chunk of this problem.

[PilotsError 2286]

All prisons are for profit.  There's a reason the prison guard union is one of the largest anti-drug groups out there.  Keeps them employed.

[staboner 4969]

3 hours ago, DocZaius said:

Private prisons house less than 10% of all prisoners.  Not suggesting they're not a problem, but they're not as big an issue as they're made out to be.

great stat. thanks for posting this.

yes, private prisons are a big problem

[XR4ticlone 122]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because intoxication manslaughter is an accident, ultimately?  Yes a tragic accident.  And one made much more likely by the reckless actions of the defendant.  But an accident nonetheless, that might arise under a broad set of circumstances implicating greater and lesser culpability?

Is it any more or less worthy of a stiff sentence than, say, texting manslaughter, or drive like a dipshit manslaughter, or fiddling with the radio manslaughter, or getting your dick sucked manslaughter?  Oh?  There are no such offenses.  Hmmmm.  Well, that makes me MADD.

As long as people don't have to accept any responsibility for their irresponsible behavior...then it's not going to change.  Giving them probation for it...isn't changing shit.   : (

A tire blows out on a truck after hitting something that was on the road and kills a family.  We got 55 'lawyers' on tv ready and willing to bankrupt the company that owns the truck.  That's an accident. 

Getting fucking clobbered and then getting behind the wheel...that's NOT an accident.  It's irresponsible...and probation should never be an option. 

[po elvis 2070]

2 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

As long as people don't have to accept any responsibility for their irresponsible behavior...then it's not going to change.  Giving them probation for it...isn't changing shit.   : (

A tire blows out on a truck after hitting something that was on the road and kills a family.  We got 55 'lawyers' on tv ready and willing to bankrupt the company that owns the truck.  That's an accident. 

Getting fucking clobbered and then getting behind the wheel...that's NOT an accident.  It's irresponsible...and probation should never be an option. 

ever wonder why all those bar parking lots are packed on Friday nights all over town, whichever town that might be, if you aren't supposed to drink and drive? drinking and driving is an issue that is always talked about, and everyone nods their head together that it is a bad thing, but these same people still do it. and these people include judges, lawyers, legislators, police officers, etc. so when someone gets convicted of intoxication manslaughter there are these thoughts by people that "damn, that could have been me" and don't want to be too harsh on someone when they see they could have possibly been in that situation.

[RomaVicta 29892]

Jail 'em! is our domestic version of our bomb 'em! single mindedness in foreign policy.

Get tough was the phrase throughout the 80s when zero tolerance for things like drug possession started cramming (mostly black) people into our prisons. Tough, indeed. We laugh about prison rape and don't give a shit just how inhuman the situation really is in American prisons.

Like rolling the tanks or launching the tomahawks, we get a vicarious rush of toughness when we fantasize about the horrors that await anyone sentenced to incarceration. 

When all you use is a hammer...

[DanRydell 799]

51 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

As long as people don't have to accept any responsibility for their irresponsible behavior...then it's not going to change.  Giving them probation for it...isn't changing shit.   : (

A tire blows out on a truck after hitting something that was on the road and kills a family.  We got 55 'lawyers' on tv ready and willing to bankrupt the company that owns the truck.  That's an accident. 

Getting fucking clobbered and then getting behind the wheel...that's NOT an accident.  It's irresponsible...and probation should never be an option. 

Do you think probation should never be an option for driving while intoxicated or just for intoxication manslaughter?

[XR4ticlone 122]

13 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

Do you think probation should never be an option for driving while intoxicated or just for intoxication manslaughter?

No.

First offense a week in jail.

Second offense a month in jail.

Third offense...if we catch you driving a car drunk we're pulling your ass out and shooting you on the spot. 

And yea, I get it.  It's there because most of our legislatures are alcoholics & probably did or do drive drunk.  I understand alcoholism all too well as it's in my family.   Yes, I have uncles and a cousin or two that probably drunk drove home 80% of their lives.  They should have been arrested, but in small town Iowa it was let go as they were 5-10 blocks from home. Thankfully they never killed anyone & no we never hid our frustration with them for doing it.  

If you want to go get drunk or high...or whatever.  Fine.  Go with God.  But you put other people's lives in danger...then fuck you, pay the price. 

I'm a hard ass on this...I know it.  I don't really care what you think...if this causes you to feel guilt or change your behavior.  GOOD. 

No, actually.... GREAT!  I pray you do before you kill someone. 

 

 

 

[Texaskimo 135]

Part of the problem with drunk driving is bars that have a sign in their parking lot stating "all cars in this lot will be towed at 3 am." Don't drink and drive, but if you DO drink a little too much you can't take a cab home or we'll fucking tow your shit.

It should be illegal for establishments that serve alcohol and have dedicated parking (i.e. not just metered public parking on the street) to tow customer's vehicles that are left overnight.

[Bigpoppapump 529]

30 minutes ago, Texaskimo said:

Part of the problem with drunk driving is bars that have a sign in their parking lot stating "all cars in this lot will be towed at 3 am." Don't drink and drive, but if you DO drink a little too much you can't take a cab home or we'll fucking tow your shit.

It should be illegal for establishments that serve alcohol and have dedicated parking (i.e. not just metered public parking on the street) to tow customer's vehicles that are left overnight.

Honestly, if you were gonna get drunk, you should've planned for this scenario before you even came to the bar.  Aka no driving at all.

[Tex Long 4382]

Solve the problem? Pffftttt! Assign blame, mete out punishment. Profit.

[High Plains Drifter 11024]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Is it any more or less worthy of a stiff sentence than, say, texting manslaughter, or drive like a dipshit manslaughter, or fiddling with the radio manslaughter, or getting your dick sucked manslaughter?  Oh?  There are no such offenses.  Hmmmm.  Well, that makes me MADD.

 

Maybe there should be.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

As long as your thoughts on sentencing and related topics are considered, and not knee-jerk, I'm cool with it.

 

One of the problems with the ever-increasing panoply of crimes is that jurors and society as a whole I think lose some "perspective" on the spectrum of criminal behavior.  If intoxication manslaughter is considered instead as just another species of manslaughter or unintentional death caused by varying circumstances of negligence or recklessness, then a jury or even a sentencing judge is apt to make a more nuanced sentencing decision because s/he/they are considering a broader spectrum of behavior involving a broader spectrum of culpability.  When you are considering a very specific crime like intoxication manslaughter, you lose all that perspective.  For example, if the sentencing range is 2-20, that's broad.  But if that  crime range encompasses less-enraging behavior like "radio-fiddling" as well as "blind drunk behind the wheel" then you get the idea that maybe it's radio-fiddling that gets the 2 probated and the blind drunk that gets 15, and the repeat offender blind drunk that gets the full 20 and so on, whereas intoxication manslaughter, if they're guilty, they were drunk behind the wheel and killed someone and there are fewer circumstances to consider in where to pin the tail on that 2-20 donkey.

Also, the OP article discusses the federal attempt to remove judicial discretion (there is no jury sentencing in the federal system, but there is in Texas) from the sentencing calculus with the federal sentencing guidelines, which, as the article notes, are a byzantine array of factors to consider at arriving at a sentence.  Sounds good at first glance, but in practice is just a series of arbitrary, fairly discretionary decisions that underlie the sentence, instead of just one big holistic discretionary decision and that has proven to be a royal pain in the ass, caused a proliferation of appeals, helps no one in the process, and results in, as the article says, "bone-crushing" sentences and incarceration nation.

 

Texas, on the other hand, is indeterminate.  You get a range, a very broad one often, like 2-20, and the judge or jury makes a holistic, broad-based decision on what is the right sentence.  And despite all the numbnuts running around in our political offices, Texas has been pretty darn good about considering alternatives to incarceration and lengthy sentences and actually thinking about what we, as a state, are doing with our criminals and why.

Edited April 23, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31433]

6 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

As long as people don't have to accept any responsibility for their irresponsible behavior...then it's not going to change.  Giving them probation for it...isn't changing shit.   : (

A tire blows out on a truck after hitting something that was on the road and kills a family.  We got 55 'lawyers' on tv ready and willing to bankrupt the company that owns the truck.  That's an accident. 

Getting fucking clobbered and then getting behind the wheel...that's NOT an accident.  It's irresponsible...and probation should never be an option. 

There's very little evidence that increased penalties increase deterrence.  And you conflate civil liability with criminal.   A person who commits intoxication manslaughter is every bit as susceptible to being bankrupted (they can't get a discharge either) as the company that owns the truck.

 

And, never say never.

 

[TwiceHorn 31433]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's very little evidence that increased penalties increase deterrence.  So you can make it mandatory life without parole or the death penalty and that isn't going to cut down on drunk driving.

And you conflate civil liability with criminal.   A person who commits intoxication manslaughter is every bit as susceptible to being bankrupted (they can't get a discharge either) as the company that owns the truck.

And, never say never.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by TwiceHorn
Goddammit should have been an edit not a quote.

[XR4ticlone 122]

I forgot to add last time....I agree that distracted driving is also a major issue.

The problem is how do you determine 'radio fiddling'?  Or putting on makeup?  From just random fuck up?  Was looking the other way?  Or whatever?

But yes, I see it, I get it, and I know that too many people are out there living their lives while going down the road when they should be driving. 

 

It turned out this was the case I was on panel for.  Double Manslaughter  She plead guilty to two counts intoxicated manslaughter, two counts intoxicated assault with deadly for the other two in the car.   She wanted jury sentencing...I think she or family had hopes of her age, first offense, and other things (I'm 95% sure she has a young kid from another article) that she'd get little or no time.  When we came back from lunch they told us there was more work to be done before going ahead on the legal side. 

I'm pretty sure her attorneys told her that the State's offer of (I don't know jail time offered) was a good deal.  Then after the prosecution questioned the panel I think it was clear that her fantasy wasn't a reality.  I won't lie, I helped shine some reality on that panel.  A.  I didn't want to spend 5 days there.  B.  I was never getting selected anyway being a big ass German.  C.  I figured I could ensure my departure and do more to get justice by grandstanding that morning than I'd ever get done trying to get on it.  So I made every statement, argument, and case of how asinine and offensive it even was to have probation as an option. 

And look...I fuck up too.  I'm no where near perfect.   But I 'eat' my fuck ups.  That's how I roll.  The idea that you kill two people and walk with probation?  That's not even putting on the napkin.  You'll never be able to eat that elephant...but you should spend at least 15-60 years working at it. 

[Larry T. Spider 1746]

3 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

I forgot to add last time....I agree that distracted driving is also a major issue.

The problem is how do you determine 'radio fiddling'?  Or putting on makeup?  From just random fuck up?  Was looking the other way?  Or whatever?

But yes, I see it, I get it, and I know that too many people are out there living their lives while going down the road when they should be driving. 

 

It turned out this was the case I was on panel for.  Double Manslaughter  She plead guilty to two counts intoxicated manslaughter, two counts intoxicated assault with deadly for the other two in the car.   She wanted jury sentencing...I think she or family had hopes of her age, first offense, and other things (I'm 95% sure she has a young kid from another article) that she'd get little or no time.  When we came back from lunch they told us there was more work to be done before going ahead on the legal side. 

I'm pretty sure her attorneys told her that the State's offer of (I don't know jail time offered) was a good deal.  Then after the prosecution questioned the panel I think it was clear that her fantasy wasn't a reality.  I won't lie, I helped shine some reality on that panel.  A.  I didn't want to spend 5 days there.  B.  I was never getting selected anyway being a big ass German.  C.  I figured I could ensure my departure and do more to get justice by grandstanding that morning than I'd ever get done trying to get on it.  So I made every statement, argument, and case of how asinine and offensive it even was to have probation as an option. 

And look...I fuck up too.  I'm no where near perfect.   But I 'eat' my fuck ups.  That's how I roll.  The idea that you kill two people and walk with probation?  That's not even putting on the napkin.  You'll never be able to eat that elephant...but you should spend at least 15-60 years working at it. 

Such a civic servant. 

[XR4ticlone 122]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's very little evidence that increased penalties increase deterrence.  And you conflate civil liability with criminal.   A person who commits intoxication manslaughter is every bit as susceptible to being bankrupted (they can't get a discharge either) as the company that owns the truck.

 

And, never say never.

 

 

Yes, but the trucking company didn't make the choice to put something in the road to blow out a tire. 

I saw your posts in the other thread.  Like I added, I know alcoholism all too well.  We all have our burdens to carry, thankfully drugs and alcohol aren't mine.  

But frankly I'm sick of turning on the news to see videos & stories like the ones I posted.  And between her being in jail or doing it again and killing my family...I'd rather pay for her to be in jail.  Had I been on the jury that gave her a slap on the wrist...and it happened again....then IMHO that's on me. 

[XR4ticlone 122]

11 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Such a civic servant. 

I try.  Thanks for noticing.

I'm sure if it had been your family she killed you'd still be happy with probation? 

Or if she got probation and does it again...you still happy with that?

 

 

[Brothahorn 10087]

I remember reading the occasional news blurb about some creative sentence that Ted Poe had issued back in the day.  I guess this kind of thing doesn't happen anymore?
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/26/news/mn-43159
Of course, decriminalizing marijuana would alleviate a large chunk of this problem.

Try that today and I bet a certain type of person would complain about criminal shaming.

[DanRydell 799]

2 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

I forgot to add last time....I agree that distracted driving is also a major issue.

The problem is how do you determine 'radio fiddling'?  Or putting on makeup?  From just random fuck up?  Was looking the other way?  Or whatever?

But yes, I see it, I get it, and I know that too many people are out there living their lives while going down the road when they should be driving. 

 

It turned out this was the case I was on panel for.  Double Manslaughter  She plead guilty to two counts intoxicated manslaughter, two counts intoxicated assault with deadly for the other two in the car.   She wanted jury sentencing...I think she or family had hopes of her age, first offense, and other things (I'm 95% sure she has a young kid from another article) that she'd get little or no time.  When we came back from lunch they told us there was more work to be done before going ahead on the legal side. 

I'm pretty sure her attorneys told her that the State's offer of (I don't know jail time offered) was a good deal.  Then after the prosecution questioned the panel I think it was clear that her fantasy wasn't a reality.  I won't lie, I helped shine some reality on that panel.  A.  I didn't want to spend 5 days there.  B.  I was never getting selected anyway being a big ass German.  C.  I figured I could ensure my departure and do more to get justice by grandstanding that morning than I'd ever get done trying to get on it.  So I made every statement, argument, and case of how asinine and offensive it even was to have probation as an option. 

And look...I fuck up too.  I'm no where near perfect.   But I 'eat' my fuck ups.  That's how I roll.  The idea that you kill two people and walk with probation?  That's not even putting on the napkin.  You'll never be able to eat that elephant...but you should spend at least 15-60 years working at it. 

So is your problem the drunk driving or that two people were killed? You seem to oscillate back and forth.

The former was a wrongful and reckless act. The latter was bad luck.

[Bernard 879]

Quote

Probation???  Are you fucking kidding me?  How is that even an option?

I was told during a voir dire that probation is an option for any sentence under 10 years. It doesn't have anything specifically to specifically do with intoxication manslaughter.  Unless you want a minimum sentence of 10 years, probation will always be an option.

I was in a sexual assault jury pool for the above case. When it was explained to the jury pool that probation was an option, a middle aged Jewish woman started freaking out. She said there's no way she would consider probation, which would knock her out of the pool automatically. After hearing her freak out, at least half of the female jurors in a 60 person pool raised their hands and they wouldn't consider probation either. We had to sit there for 30 minutes while the prosecutor talked most of them off the ledge.

Bernard

[TwiceHorn 31433]

2 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

Yes, but the trucking company didn't make the choice to put something in the road to blow out a tire. 

I saw your posts in the other thread.  Like I added, I know alcoholism all too well.  We all have our burdens to carry, thankfully drugs and alcohol aren't mine.  

But frankly I'm sick of turning on the news to see videos & stories like the ones I posted.  And between her being in jail or doing it again and killing my family...I'd rather pay for her to be in jail.  Had I been on the jury that gave her a slap on the wrist...and it happened again....then IMHO that's on me. 

For the record, I haven't posted on this particular topic for quite some time.  I have posted frequently that all too often in our criminal justice system, the answer to everything is MOAR TIME!

And certainly, the availability of probation, in certain circumstances, doesn't mean any particular defendant should receive it.  Some people are chronic drunks that are never going to recover, and some are  good and decent people that find themselves in a very bad situation, that of being a drunk and facing the ultimate consequence thereof, and no punishment you can dole out is going to hurt them more than the fact that they killed someone while drunk.

And while probation avoids jail initially, it isn't unconditional.  If that person gets their shit together, stays sober and commits no further offenses, they do.  If they get drunk and break out in fuck ups like affluenza boy, they're gonna do time.  For some poorer folks or those addicted to the point they can't earn a living, probation is probably actually worse than prison and they are going to prison sooner rather than later.

And, while it's an easy temptation to fall into, I think jurors and those passing sentence must resist putting themselves in the position of the victims.  The justice system serves society, not victims.  And, I think people generally harbor too much vengefulness.

 

Finally, yes, my experience with addiction influences my views on criminal justice.  It may not be entirely common, but I have seen some remarkable redemptions, including my own.  That has taught me not to throw people away like dirty dishwater, which is what the criminal justice system too often does.  A person who does not seek redemption will have plenty of other opportunities to be punished, and rightfully so.  But a lengthy prison sentence and a felony record (the record will be unavoidable, but just makes it that much worse) makes it nigh unto impossible for a person to redeem themselves.  And what has society received?  A nice helping of vengeance and a ward of the state, essentially.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

15 minutes ago, Bernard said:

I was told during a voir dire that probation is an option for any sentence under 10 years. It doesn't have anything specifically to specifically do with intoxication manslaughter.  Unless you want a minimum sentence of 10 years, probation will always be an option.

I was in a sexual assault jury pool for the above case. When it was explained to the jury pool that probation was an option, a middle aged Jewish woman started freaking out. She said there's no way she would consider probation, which would knock her out of the pool automatically. After hearing her freak out, at least half of the female jurors in a 60 person pool raised their hands and they wouldn't consider probation either. We had to sit there for 30 minutes while the prosecutor talked most of them off the ledge.

Bernard

Valid point, yes.

 

To the point of the OP article, there is virtually no probation in the federal system (it's theoretically there, but almost never sentenced).  Similarly there is no parole, either.  Absent a pardon or commutation or other extraordinary event, a federal inmate will serve at least 85% of their sentence.

Edited April 24, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[XR4ticlone 122]

50 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

So is your problem the drunk driving or that two people were killed? You seem to oscillate back and forth.

The former was a wrongful and reckless act. The latter was bad luck.

I put bullets in my AR & blindly shoot it off in the direction of a school...are the deaths 'bad luck' as well? 

*I don't believe in luck.   At least on that type of level. 

 

You got the dominant genes for baldness from both your folks and are bald...well, that's bad luck.  

You lose your hair after pouring gas on your head & running around in a fireworks show...that's on you. 

[DanRydell 799]

I put bullets in my AR & blindly shoot it off in the direction of a school...are the deaths 'bad luck' as well? 
*I don't believe in luck.   At least on that type of level. 
 
You got the dominant genes for baldness from both your folks and are bald...well, that's bad luck.  
You lose your hair after pouring gas on your head & running around in a fireworks show...that's on you. 

If you and I stand next to each other and each fire 10 shots into the dark and you hit and kill someone and I don’t, should you be punished more severely than me?

[Guest]

Stop breaking the fucking law.

 

Not difficult for most people...

 

and LO-fucking-L at a typical first timer facing felony charges.  yeah, sure.  they're all good kids who just forgot to take out the trash or some shit.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

Stop breaking the fucking law.

 

Not difficult for most people...

 

and LO-fucking-L at a typical first timer facing felony charges.  yeah, sure.  they're all good kids who just forgot to take out the trash or some shit.

Well, your last sentence is indeed an irony.  You are correct that by hook or crook, many criminals of the more common variety, theft, burglary, assault, drug dealing outside the federal system, are not going to do time for their first offenses.  And many of them are pretty young and probably deserve a chance not to have their lives completely ruined, even if the odds are low that they will take advantage of it.  Plenty of time to send them to the slam for 20 years.

While an intoxication manslaughter defendant is looking at 20 years.  Not that they deserve special treatment, but again, the perspective kind of gets lost.

Edited April 24, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

My tolerance for INTOXICATED any crime beyond simple PI ain't very fucking high.

 

Just served on a grand jury and the only time age came up was in two cases involving old fuckers and any crime against children.  Otherwise, it didn't make a fuck to us if they were 20 or 40.

Edited April 24, 2018 by slorch

[XR4ticlone 122]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Finally, yes, my experience with addiction influences my views on criminal justice.  It may not be entirely common, but I have seen some remarkable redemptions, including my own.  That has taught me not to throw people away like dirty dishwater, which is what the criminal justice system too often does.  A person who does not seek redemption will have plenty of other opportunities to be punished, and rightfully so.  But a lengthy prison sentence and a felony record (the record will be unavoidable, but just makes it that much worse) makes it nigh unto impossible for a person to redeem themselves.  And what has society received?  A nice helping of vengeance and a ward of the state, essentially.

A.  God bless you.  I mean that. 

B.  I'm all for redemption.  I have a buddy that hooked a felony 20 years ago after being in front of the same judge too many times for misdemeanor theft and drug use.  20+ years later it haunts him & limits his job options.  I agree that's a bad deal...and I talk to my oldest about that as well.  There is no escaping your past in our digital information age.  

C. It's not that I want anyone 'thrown away' but there has to be consequences for choices.  No one is going to say 'well don't get drunk and drive...you might kill some people and have to got to a probation meeting once a month'....#ScaredStraight  (rolls eyes) 

My comment was 'I don't know if she's plead guilty to this because she had no real defense, or if she did so because she feels remorse and wants to take responsibility for her choices...then I applaud her for that.  But that doesn't change the need for punishment.  Those people will never come back...their families lives will never be the same.   Regardless if you have to live with this for the rest of your life...it doesn't mean you walk free. 

[TwiceHorn 31433]

4 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

A.  God bless you.  I mean that. 

B.  I'm all for redemption.  I have a buddy that hooked a felony 20 years ago after being in front of the same judge too many times for misdemeanor theft and drug use.  20+ years later it haunts him & limits his job options.  I agree that's a bad deal...and I talk to my oldest about that as well.  There is no escaping your past in our digital information age.  

C. It's not that I want anyone 'thrown away' but there has to be consequences for choices.  No one is going to say 'well don't get drunk and drive...you might kill some people and have to got to a probation meeting once a month'....#ScaredStraight  (rolls eyes) 

My comment was 'I don't know if she's plead guilty to this because she had no real defense, or if she did so because she feels remorse and wants to take responsibility for her choices...then I applaud her for that.  But that doesn't change the need for punishment.  Those people will never come back...their families lives will never be the same.   Regardless if you have to live with this for the rest of your life...it doesn't mean you walk free. 

I'm not about to contend that probation is not better than prison, but it's not as simple as a meeting once a month.  There are drug tests, fees, counseling/courses, fees, alcohol and GPS location montioring, and still more fees, and if you get in any kind of trouble, it can be revoked and you're going to the joint.  It is so nerve-wracking and costly that for light sentences, a pretty good segment of the population chooses to sit out their sentence instead of taking probation.  But it is an opportunity for a person to get it back together in a way that prison doesn't provide.

I couldn't find a report of her ultimate sentence, either.  Lots of reports of the two jury panels dismissed because of reactions like yours.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

41 minutes ago, slorch said:

My tolerance for INTOXICATED any crime beyond simple PI ain't very fucking high.

 

Just served on a grand jury and the only time age came up was in two cases involving old fuckers and any crime against children.  Otherwise, it didn't make a fuck to us if they were 20 or 40.

Well that's good, because your only job was to indict, not to find guilty or sentence.  How many ham sandwiches did you true bill?

 

And I assume that you are aware that presentations to a grand jury are extremely one-sided.  Although I'm sure many of the cases you indicted had no other side.

 

And serious curiosity, how many cases did you no bill and how many did you consider?

Edited April 24, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

We no-billed about 1-2 per week.

Averaged hearing about 50 cases per week, although some were 3 cases tied to one event>>> perp evades from cop, throws drugs out the window,  and has possession of firearm by a felon.

 

definitely aware of the difference between probable cause and reasonable doubt.  I also DID actually feel good about the no-bills we had.  Can't really discuss the particulars, but I felt we truly did try to be objective about the cases.  I know in at least 2 the prosecutors acted kind of pissy with our questions.  Our attitude was < " Fuck you.  if it's an automatic endictment, then why the fuck are we here?  You do your job.  We'll do ours."

Edited April 24, 2018 by slorch

[RPM 26315]

9 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

No.

First offense a week in jail.

Second offense a month in jail.

Third offense...if we catch you driving a car drunk we're pulling your ass out and shooting you on the spot. 

And yea, I get it.  It's there because most of our legislatures are alcoholics & probably did or do drive drunk.  I understand alcoholism all too well as it's in my family.   Yes, I have uncles and a cousin or two that probably drunk drove home 80% of their lives.  They should have been arrested, but in small town Iowa it was let go as they were 5-10 blocks from home. Thankfully they never killed anyone & no we never hid our frustration with them for doing it.  

If you want to go get drunk or high...or whatever.  Fine.  Go with God.  But you put other people's lives in danger...then fuck you, pay the price. 

I'm a hard ass on this...I know it.  I don't really care what you think...if this causes you to feel guilt or change your behavior.  GOOD. 

No, actually.... GREAT!  I pray you do before you kill someone. 

 

 

 

Why not simply put breathalyzers in every car? Mandatory safety equipment just like seat belts and turn signals. Oh, that's right it would drastically cut down on DWIs and the cash flow. We aren't really concerned with stopping DWI, we just want the money.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, XYZ said:

Just because they hold a small % of prisoners doesn’t mean that they are not a big issue. All they need to do is have a powerful enough lobbying arm. And they do.

Sounds like random people are rounded up to fill the prisons...LOL.  Weird as hell.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, RPM said:

Why not simply put breathalyzers in every car? Mandatory safety equipment just like seat belts and turn signals. Oh, that's right it would drastically cut down on DWIs and the cash flow. We aren't really concerned with stopping DWI, we just want the money.

Flipside could be said about liberty itself.

 

Who the fuck would be dumb enough to get liquored up and drive?  a lot of folks.

 

I agree that we don't want to end DWI/ DUI; but the individual is ABSOLUTELY in control of determining that very outcome.

[XR4ticlone 122]

46 minutes ago, RPM said:

Why not simply put breathalyzers in every car? Mandatory safety equipment just like seat belts and turn signals. Oh, that's right it would drastically cut down on DWIs and the cash flow. We aren't really concerned with stopping DWI, we just want the money.

How much would it cost? 

I've never had more than 2 beers and drove in a night.  Since I've not weighed under 200 pounds since 9th grade that's not enough to get me drunk. 

 

I admit I was raised differently.  My dad is a big old boy and although a good man, he was no nonsense with us as kids.  

My dad made it really clear...if you drink in HS don't worry about what the school & police will do to you if you get caught.  What will happen here is going to make that look like a walk in the park.  You won't miss 3-4 games...you'll miss whatever is left of your HS career.  Community service will be easy compared to hand shoveling all these pens...but you'll have time since you won't be in any activities.  Driving after drinking?  LOL.  I'll sell your car.  "But we paid for it ourselves"  You say that like I give a shit.  That's adorable.  Your next car will be after your 18th birthday when you go on your own. 

[RPM 26315]

My dad had me mix his Weller and coke so he could keep both hands on the wheel. Safety first.

[TwiceHorn 31433]

Back to the OP article.  One thing that kind of bothers me about federal sentencing, too, is that the vast majority of federal district judges are civil lawyers prior to appointment.  I'm not privy to all of their thought processes, obviously, but it has been my observation and sense that criminal cases can be an annoying afterthought to many of these judges, who are not "immersed" in criminal justice, at least prior to being appointed.  So, I think the Sentencing Guidelines give these judges an "out" on an unpleasant duty that intrudes, to one degree or another, on their civil work.  I think that makes a number of judges overly deferential to the Guidelines.

One of the shocking things about the Sentencing Guidelines is that they can enhance a basic sentence by multiples or decades based on unindicted and unproven (to a reasonable doubt) criminal or bad conduct.  The justification for this is to consider the "true nature of the crime," unfettered by niceties like indictments, and jury verdicts on actual crimes after proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Stunningly, an indictment can contain a count, or crime, that the jury refuses to convict on, while convicting on others.  But that same crime may be considered for sentencing purposes if the judge thinks it is proven to a preponderance of the evidence, and the sentence enhancement can be several years to decades on this.  It's not quite the same as sentencing someone for a crime for which they have been acquitted, but it is nauseatingly close to it.

As originally conceived, the Guidelines were mandatory, meaning if a judge failed to follow them, or got the Byzantine analysis wrong, it was a near-automatic reversal, while following them to a T meant the sentence was untouchable on appeal.

Because the Guidelines consider unproven criminal conduct, and without the availability of a jury trial on those issues, the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be mandatory, but only advisory.  The current appellate situation, though, is that a sentence according to the Guidelines is presumptively reasonable.  So, even though they aren't mandatory, a judge can't go very wrong by following them and can create a helluva mess (meaning appellate ping-pong back and forth) for himself by deviating .  So this further encourages judges to use them,  A few maverick judges have "gone to war" with the Guidelines when they are especially stupid and refused to apply them, which also means they have gone to war with the court of appeals.  I think this author is one of them.  That takes balls and I admire it.

Edited April 24, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[XYZ 2154]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Sounds like random people are rounded up to fill the prisons...LOL.  Weird as hell.

What?

[DanRydell 799]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Back to the OP article.  One thing that kind of bothers me about federal sentencing, too, is that the vast majority of federal district judges are civil lawyers prior to appointment.  I'm not privy to all of their thought processes, obviously, but it has been my observation and sense that criminal cases can be an annoying afterthought to many of these judges, who are not "immersed" in criminal justice, at least prior to being appointed.  So, I think the Sentencing Guidelines give these judges an "out" on an unpleasant duty that intrudes, to one degree or another, on their civil work.  I think that makes a number of judges overly deferential to the Guidelines.

One of the shocking things about the Sentencing Guidelines is that they can enhance a basic sentence by multiples or decades based on unindicted and unproven (to a reasonable doubt) criminal or bad conduct.  The justification for this is to consider the "true nature of the crime," unfettered by niceties like indictments, and jury verdicts on actual crimes after proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Stunningly, an indictment can contain a count, or crime, that the jury refuses to convict on, while convicting on others.  But that same crime may be considered for sentencing purposes if the judge thinks it is proven to a preponderance of the evidence, and the sentence enhancement can be several years to decades on this.  It's not quite the same as sentencing someone for a crime for which they have been acquitted, but it is nauseatingly close to it.

As originally conceived, the Guidelines were mandatory, meaning if a judge failed to follow them, or got the Byzantine analysis wrong, it was a near-automatic reversal, while following them to a T meant the sentence was untouchable on appeal.

Because the Guidelines consider unproven criminal conduct, and without the availability of a jury trial on those issues, the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be mandatory, but only advisory.  The current appellate situation, though, is that a sentence according to the Guidelines is presumptively reasonable.  So, even though they aren't mandatory, a judge can't go very wrong by following them and can create a helluva mess (meaning appellate ping-pong back and forth) for himself by deviating .  So this further encourages judges to use them,  A few maverick judges have "gone to war" with the Guidelines when they are especially stupid and refused to apply them, which also means they have gone to war with the court of appeals.  I think this author is one of them.  That takes balls and I admire it.

Even among the minority of judges with criminal experience, I would bet those with prosecutorial experience outnumber those with defense experience 10 to 1.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, XYZ said:

What?

Some people in this thread, including the article in the OP; act as if nobody is actually committing crimes before they end up in prison.  

[Guest]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Back to the OP article.  One thing that kind of bothers me about federal sentencing, too, is that the vast majority of federal district judges are civil lawyers prior to appointment.  I'm not privy to all of their thought processes, obviously, but it has been my observation and sense that criminal cases can be an annoying afterthought to many of these judges, who are not "immersed" in criminal justice, at least prior to being appointed.  So, I think the Sentencing Guidelines give these judges an "out" on an unpleasant duty that intrudes, to one degree or another, on their civil work.  I think that makes a number of judges overly deferential to the Guidelines.

One of the shocking things about the Sentencing Guidelines is that they can enhance a basic sentence by multiples or decades based on unindicted and unproven (to a reasonable doubt) criminal or bad conduct.  The justification for this is to consider the "true nature of the crime," unfettered by niceties like indictments, and jury verdicts on actual crimes after proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Stunningly, an indictment can contain a count, or crime, that the jury refuses to convict on, while convicting on others.  But that same crime may be considered for sentencing purposes if the judge thinks it is proven to a preponderance of the evidence, and the sentence enhancement can be several years to decades on this.  It's not quite the same as sentencing someone for a crime for which they have been acquitted, but it is nauseatingly close to it.

As originally conceived, the Guidelines were mandatory, meaning if a judge failed to follow them, or got the Byzantine analysis wrong, it was a near-automatic reversal, while following them to a T meant the sentence was untouchable on appeal.

Because the Guidelines consider unproven criminal conduct, and without the availability of a jury trial on those issues, the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be mandatory, but only advisory.  The current appellate situation, though, is that a sentence according to the Guidelines is presumptively reasonable.  So, even though they aren't mandatory, a judge can't go very wrong by following them and can create a helluva mess (meaning appellate ping-pong back and forth) for himself by deviating .  So this further encourages judges to use them,  A few maverick judges have "gone to war" with the Guidelines when they are especially stupid and refused to apply them, which also means they have gone to war with the court of appeals.  I think this author is one of them.  That takes balls and I admire it.

So do you feel the prominence of  prosecutorial backgrounds make judges generally too harsh or too lax?

 

Do the guidelines need to be changed?

Edited April 24, 2018 by slorch