home

Justice in the Balance

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon May 09, 2005 at 03:40:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

This was written by a member of the Rhode Island Parole Board to describe his struggle to balance the horrific stories he hears from crime victims and the sincere appraisals of failed lives he hears from offenders who may deserve a second chance.

So, how do I administer justice? I believe that justice can’t be shaped by simplistic formulas. Rather, justice happens when real human beings sort through a jumble of laws, rules, conflicting stories, and plain old instinct.

While made in the context of parole decisions, his comments are an effective refutation to those who think "one size fits all" sentencing proposals have something to do with justice.

< Hung Jury in Ohio Sniper Case | Cheney Raises $200k for Musgrave >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Justice in the Balance | 31 comments (31 topical)
    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    In a perfect world, yes I would agree, but who's to say the persons who "sort through a jumble of laws, rules, conflicting stories, and plain old instinct," are going to be fair and impartial. Or for that matter are going to not include their bias (Which we all have to one degree or another) in their decision making capacity. Or that we would have disparate treatment of the same or similar offenses.....and on and on and on.... Good idea in theory, but impractical in reality, IMO.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Is it any better to make an absolutist approach, with no distinction for individuals? Just look at the crime, look at the punishment on the chart (also created by those same flawed human beings with agendas you worry about Patrick), and viola, instant sentence? How would you feel about a fixed sentence of, say 20 years, for any incident of excessive force by police, no exceptions, no matter the provocation. Thanks, but no thanks. Surely there is a compromise between these extremes. Until then, I'll trust a flawed human judge over an arbitrary soulless schedule of punishments arrived at by a committee of politcos.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#3)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Patrick, You would love germany. Look up the crime, sentence is over on the right. Completely "fair", with no allowance for error (or discretion) Adept, on the other hand would probably prefer the "American" system, adapted from the English. Lots of discretion for unique circumstances, but open to stupidity, corruption, etc. Both systems have their faults, while no system can eliminate all problems

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    I am stunned to hear anyone working for a parole board even contemplate striking a balance between so-called victim rights and second chances. The formula is generally very simple: no. No. And no again.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#5)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    So. What's his batting average? Compared to the average recidivist rate, how are the guys doing who he voted to parole? How about the ones where he was the swing vote? I'd be a lot more interested in the result than the struggle. After all, the result happens to my friends, his struggle only to him. Hardly my problem.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    When we try the "cookbook" approach in medicine it works like a screen door on a submarine.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Adept sums up my view well. To give judges no discretion in sentencing defeats the purpose of having judges. May as well use robots or computers to administer justice.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#8)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Props to the author for taking on the hard role of really dispensing justice. All of the cases mentioned however seemed to involve balancing wronged persons' ("victims") rights and public safety with the "correction" of the offender, the traditional purview of parole decisions. I found myself wondering, however, as I always do, if this is a misdirection ploy about the true nature of crime and punishment in America today. More than roughly half of all incarceration today results from drug crimes (and **not** counting the attendant violence, etc. of the black market...murders, burgalaries, etc. are separately accounted for. I'm only talking drug convictions). It's interesting the article didn't mention drug crimes. It was all about "victims rights". But who are the victims in the drug crimes? The inmates themselves? Their families, who are being doubly punished by their separation and incarceration? The people of the state of Rhode Island, for the failure of the WoD to be at all effective in keeping drugs out of the hands of willing, voluntary buyers. Are those the victims? I haven't researched RI law, but the feds and many other states have done away with parole under "truth in sentencing laws". I'll cut you some slack McFab that anytime a victim shows up at a parole hearing and is still not recovered from a violent criminal insult like murder or rape, it should weigh heavily in favor of parole denial. But I just don't see how the incarceration of the 50% of the all time high prison population of inmates convicted of non-violent crimes is justififed by a supposedly enlightened western "democracy".

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    More than roughly half of all incarceration today results from drug crimes (and **not** counting the attendant violence, etc. of the black market...murders, burgalaries, etc. are separately accounted for. I'm only talking drug convictions).
    Your going to have to do better than this. Which drugs? In Oregon, we have a huge meth problem which accounts for huge percentage of property crime and identity theft. Victimless except the willing user? I may let you argue treatment for the user; but the "cooker" and seller? If you are equating drugs and pot we may have a rational discussion - but lets hear what drugs you think are harmless to society (other than the willing user).

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Keep in mind one of the reasons early on for sentencing guidelines was racism involved in
    justice happen(ing) when real human beings sort through a jumble of laws, rules, conflicting stories, and plain old instinct.
    especially that plain old instinct. May be worse when talking about judges and sentencing.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    JCH, Some people steal to get meth, some dont. Last I checked, theft was a crime all by itself. Arrest the theives, let those who dont commit crimes use any drug they choose

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    I again may let you play this way with users who do not commit crimes. What about people caught cooking and dealing?

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Oh: generally speaking I think people have the potential to have a future worth living. I think that is the reason to intervene in suicide. In what respects should we intervene in the use of drugs that may amount to slow suicide? (this is an enforced treatment, not incarceration issue)

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Intervene only when the user requests assistance. Anything else is tyranny. Would you like it if I "intervened" and forced you to stop eating fatty foods "for your own good"? I sure wouldn't. Cooking and Selling? Bringing goods that people want to the marketplace, isn't that what a free market is all about? Let me say I don't want people doing meth either, but the most effective way to prevent it is education, not incarceration or forced treatment.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    "More than roughly half of all incarceration today results from drug crimes" Actually, no where near half of all incarcerations today result from drug crimes. Try to get the drugs laws changed if you like, but be honest about it.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Kdog
    Cooking and Selling? Bringing goods that people want to the marketplace, isn't that what a free market is all about?
    Come on - you going to bring a product liability suit against them after their customers kill themselves or someone else? Did they have FDA approval before coming to the marketplace? Freedom AND responsibility.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    A liability suit sure beats throwing both buyer and seller in jail at taxpayers expense, at least in my book. That's why I'm for legalizing all drugs. We have an existing apparatus for their sale to adults only, that being liquor stores. Big warning labels can be affixed, and each American would have the freedom to decide what substances they want to use. Stop giving common criminals the ability to make large sums of cash selling on the black market, and ensure quality product is available for the user. The billions saved could be used for voluntary treatment for addiction and tax cuts.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Kdog, I would actually give an either or: either absolutely cut off supply, or legalize - but the current situation is absurd. I doubt if any US Government has even the will, much less the ability, to cut off the supply; so on a PRACTICAL level I probably completely agree with you [WOW, DID I SAY THAT? :o, :) ] And I think there are some drugs that may be left outside this loop - there are plenty to switch to so some of the more heinous ones physically, socially, and mentally could be left out of the drug store (but obviously you counteract the purpose of legalization if you make this group too large)

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Kdog, I would actually give an either or: either absolutely cut off supply, or legalize - but the current situation is absurd. I doubt if any US Government has even the will, much less the ability, to cut off the supply; so on a PRACTICAL level I probably completely agree with you [WOW, DID I SAY THAT? :o, :) ] And I think there are some drugs that may be left outside this loop - there are plenty to switch to so some of the more heinous ones physically, socially, and mentally could be left out of the drug store (but obviously you counteract the purpose of legalization if you make this group too large)

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Kdog... That's why I'm for legalizing all drugs. A good plank for the "Common Sense Party" platform!

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    Well, there is that - the position is unelectable.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    jchfleet, in fact, you said it twice! Anyway, here's why I'm not for legalizing drugs - because the culture of drug use is such that drugs are often used throughout the day and not mostly as a dinner-time relaxant. And I don't want even more stoned dudes traipsing around possibly endangering my life. Some explanatory stories: #1. as a teenager I worked a summer job for the water company in my hometown. The mechanic was a Vietnam Vet and total stoner. One day I left the shop in the dump truck and was unable to stop the truck on a red light at a steep downhill intersection with a very busy 55 mph cross street. Despite having no brakes I got lucky and was able to plow through the intersection without hitting and/or killing anybody including myself. I called the mechanic on the radio, and he said "Sh!t. I just put new brake pads on and forgot to put brake fluid in." #2. A month later, same job, same stoned mechanic. He had me take the boss's car to the tire shop as part of his tuneup of the car. On the way I noticed that the oil light was on. His response: "Sh!t. Have them drop 5 quarts of oil in. I just changed the oil and forgot to put more in." #3. Just months ago our cable started sucking. The cable guys came at 8AM. 2 stoned out of their mind grunts. They did their thing all day long and left. A week later my neighbor told me that eveytime my sprinklers went on his yard flooded. I found the the leak. The cable guys had busted an irrigation pipe in my front yard while digging for their cable. A new cable guy came out to fix it and found that despite having all the neccessary repair pipes and materials on their truck, they "repaired" it with duct tape. Not neccessarily a by-product of being stoned, you say? Ok. A couple weeks later I called the cable co. again because the cable signal still was bad, and another cable guy came out. He found that our 2 stoners had replaced the cable from the street to the house - but had forgotten to plug the new cable into the house. Genius. For some reason, it is very accepted w/in the recreational drug culture to do drugs all day long whether at work or at play. It endangers us all. No, drug use is not a victimless crime.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#23)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Sarcastic, Oh man, now you went an done it. Not in favor of legalizing drugs? You wingnutrepubulothug. How dare you. Kdog,
    Stop giving common criminals the ability to make large sums of cash selling on the black market,
    As if you really mean that. How can you consider them common criminals when you've said before the laws are unjust? In your world they are freedom fighters or heros, no? Back on topic, Roger, I never said I wanted a one size fits all punishments system, but mandatory minimums are not even close to that. They can depart upward if there are aggravating circs, and if not, everyone gets the same. How is that unfair? It lets judges take into account the facts of each case and make a sentencing decision.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#24)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Kind of hate to mention it, but this thread got highjacked from crime&punishment to "Thisisreallygood...." Anyway, back to the article posted. Wonder what this guy would have thought of Jerry Hobbs, recently out of jail. One of his assault convictions was for a truly imaginative venture; chasing the inhabitants of a trailer park with a chain saw. I suppose you have to do some really hard emotional work to convince the parole folks that it was an aberration and you'd never do it again. Anyway, his daughter and her friend have paid the price for whatever reason there was for letting a serial assaulter out of jail.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Jackl, You misread my posting - that was sarcasm. I'm PD for Christ's sake! Check www.drugwarsurvival.com - my take on the Drug War.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Sarc..All those situations you mention could just as easily have happened while drunk instead of stoned. And all that happened while drugs were illegal, a lot of good the prohibition did eh? But the real question is, why weren't those incompetents fired? Incompetence is incompetence regardless of the cause. I have had different experiences....I did commercial painting work for awhile, the owner was a big time stoner, and he used to smoke one in the morning, one mid-morning, one at lunch, and one mid-afternoon. He was the most talented painter I've ever worked with. Excellent cutter, worked fast and neat, and ran quite a sucessful business. FWIW. Pat...Some are freedom fighters (my ganja man comes to mind:), some are common criminals who traffic in any contraband to make a buck. If it wasn't drugs, it would be phony id's or guns.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    "Sarc..All those situations you mention could just as easily have happened while drunk instead of stoned." Yes, of course, which is why I specifically talked about the culture of drugs in which they are used all day every day, in contrast to that of booze. Thank you for the excellant example to support my point. "And all that happened while drugs were illegal, a lot of good the prohibition did eh?" The point is if drugs were legalized "all that" would happen much more often. Eh?

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    I doubt it. I wouldn't start smoking crack if it was legalized, I doubt anyone who currently does not like marijuana is going to run and buy a legal bag. Using prohibition as an example, alcohol use increased when it became illegal. Maybe legalized drugs would lead to a decrease in use, quite possible in my opinion. As someone in the "drug culture", your all day, everday point is lost on me. No marijuana user I know, and I know plenty, uses all day. You've seen too many Cheech and Chong movies. I always say, going to work high is a waste of a good high. However, I do know a few alcoholics who need a nip in the morning to get rid of the shakes.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Well, I guess I would characterize your painter friend, my mechanic friend and the cable guys as prime examples of "all day every day" users. You may quibble over the definition of that term if you wish. Your claim about alc use rising during federal prohibition is certainly both unproven and unprovable. You've seen too many pro-weed/anti-prohibition websites. But even those sources who claim it is true admit that alc consumption during the 1920-1933 federal prohibition rose only in comparison to the unnatural all-time low levels of alc consumption that existed just prior to the federal ban. And that alc consumption during federal prohibition was less than the "natural" levels of alc consumption that existed prior to 1910 (when many individual states and counties started enacting their own prohibition laws and thereby reduced consumption to an all-time low by 1919, just prior to the federal prohibition of 1920) and after federal prohibition ended.

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    Just as your claim of a certain increase in drug use after legalization is unproven. And I have seen too many anti-prohibition websites, but they all make sense to me:)

    Re: Justice in the Balance (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    kdog, fair enough, any change in drug and alc consumption due to prohibition is unproven. I can accept that. I hope you can as well, and stop spinning the "higher alc use during prohibition" canard.

    Justice in the Balance | 31 comments (31 topical)