You Be The Judge, Part 2

Ezekiel Edwards

You Be The Judge, Part 2

I only received one response to my "You Be The Judge" entry --- from LB (Lochner's Bakers) --- but it was intelligent and thoughtful, so I will post it again below:

"I'd say this should be a misdemeanor with a fine. The fine should be somewhere in the low thousands. The exact amount of the fine is the only thing that should depend on her financial resources.

The crime was not violent, so incarceration doesn't make sense.

The crime was not drug or gun or any ongoing problem that could benefit from probation, so that doesn't make sense.

Community service may be a decent alternative, but the harm was not so much to the community as to the government, since they had to cover all the investigation of the theft."

Although I do not entirely agree, I consider the above suggestion very reasonable. There are some people, including a close member of my family, who believe that the woman should become a convicted felon, spend a short period of time incarcerated, receive one year of probation, and pay a fine equivalent to any police overtime. The District Attorney's Office position would be that the 25-year-old mother of two children who has never been arrested before receive a felony (thereby becoming a convicted felon for the rest of her life), five years of probation, and a $5,000 fine, regardless of her financial resources. But I ask:

-Why should this young woman be a lifelong felon, with all of the serious collateral consequences that accompany a felony conviction (after all, a misdemeanor would still give her a criminal record for life, not to mention the other available option of offering her the non-criminal disposition of a violation)?
-Why should she receive five years of probation, or any probation whatsoever, when this is her first offense, she has shown no propensity for disobeying the law, she has a stable living situation, and two children?
-What purpose would incarceration serve, particularly for a non-violent first offense, other than taking her away from her two young children?
-Why should she pay a $5,000 fine, a debilitating amount for most people, a crippling amount for some people, particularly in one of our nation's poorest counties, when she is the sole caretaker for two children?

If I were the judge or the Assistant District Attorney evaluating the case, I would suggest a violation (so she would not receive a criminal record), a fine of $200 (to be paid over a few months), and some community service.

I guess that is why I am defender, not a prosecutor...

Posted at 8:52 AM, Mar 16, 2006 in Criminal Justice | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Well you asked us to assume that the car parker knew she had put it in the garage. I, myself, afflicted with uncertain memory, often forget where I put the keys, car, checkbook etc and have searched for hours the wrong street looking for the missing vehicle. Since I dont cover my jalopies for theft, I've never tried to claim a loss.

How does the DA prove the fact that the owner "knew" the car was in the garage? How does the prosecution negative the claim that s/he forgot where it was parked?

And PS, when this sort of fraud is done by people who understand their business, I'm told the car has been taken to the chop shop before the loss is reported. Where is the evil motive here? How could the car owner have profited with the car in the garage?

I'll tell you why I didn't answer-- I am totally confused by the whole story. Its almost surreal don't you think?

I guess I also feel odd being asked to judge this sort of stuff. I'm glad you raise the problem of the longterm damage any conviction has on a person. That series in The New York Times studying the impact of a conviction on the longterm wellbeing of former convicts is a much needed exploration of a huge social problem.

If the person was knowingly attempting to steal a large sum of money from the insurance company, I would say that this is a bad person, and I would want the criminal justice system to deter that behavior. I would think that some sanction would be appropriate (this would be fraud, or something similar).

If the person claimed that she really believed that the car had been stolen, and the people have no evidence to refute that, then I would think that she is a good person who did something stupid, and some very minor sanction would be appropriate.