[Vision2020] Fwd: Sex offender legislation

[Art Deco]

Sunil writes:

"I do not share the concerns being expressed here about offenders in jail being released for treatment.  If these people were considered a threat to take off and re-offend while on treatment release, they would not be serving time after sentencing in the county jail.  They would be in prison.  They would not be on probation, they would be serving out their sentences in prison."

"The people making the decisions do not get weepy-eyed in the process of making these decisions.  They are not on the verge of getting away with something if not for you meddling kids."


Respectfully Sunil, please allow me to present a slightly different perspective.

 
The above words I have cited from two of your recent posts bring to mind a famous quote by the ethically challenged Richard Nixon:  "Trust me."  Nothing personal Sunil, but in this case perhaps the imprecation is "Trust us," where the "us" is the criminal justice system.

I have posted a timely AP news story reprinted in part in Saturday's Lewiston Morning Tribune showing how inconsistently and thus unfairly parts of the criminal justice system work.  This story focuses on just a tiny, tiny bit of the mammoth problems within the criminal justice system.  When anyone in the criminal justice system tells the public that we should just "Trust them" alarm bells should go ff loudly.  This is especially true when the uttering of "Trust us" is a thinly disguised effort to curtail public inquisitiveness and discussion about problems in the criminal justice system and the products therefrom.

Another old saw that is often applied to the criminal justice system:  "If you want to enjoy good sausage, never observe how it is made."  That may be true of "good" sausage.  However, the products of the criminal justice system are often far from being palatable.

The criminal justice system is an advocacy system.  It should be no surprise that in such a system attorneys from both sides sometimes become paid liars.  Not only do they lie in court, but they lie to the media and to the public.  And the attorneys are not the only ones who sometimes lie.  Witnesses, including law enforcement officers, sometimes lie.  During the investigation of cases illegalities by law enforcement sometimes occur.  These illegalities can go undetected by others in the justice system.  Prejudices and preconceived ideas, pro and con, about a suspect can sometimes influence the outcome of an investigation.

In the advocacy system both sides are seldom evenly matched.  Attorneys on both sides vary greatly in ability, dedication, personal energy, willingness or opportunity to spend enough time examining/preparing a case, personal integrity, etc.  Skillful defense attorneys, their clients, and less frequently, their client's friends, employers, etc often exploit personal relations/rapport with prosecutors in order to reach the best deal for their clients -- which deal may not be the best for the public.

Want a local example of sweetheart treatment from our county prosecutor's office which illustrates the above paragraph?

I have reposted below a discussion of the Tamara Iverson case.  

Tamara Iverson was charged with embezzling $6,670 from the Troy 4-H/FFA Booster Organization.  Here is a description of the plea bargain proposed by our prosecutor as described in an article in the Daily News written by Hillary Hamm:

"The plea agreement states that Iverson will receive a withheld judgment and be placed on probation for an amount of time to be determined by Superior Court Judge John Stegner. 

Iverson also must pay a restitution amount of approximately $5,000, Evans said. She has already voluntarily repaid the booster organization nearly $3,500 within the last year. 

The plea agreement does not include incarceration because of jail time she already served in a similar embezzlement case. 

In June 2003, Iverson was found guilty in a federal court for embezzling $10,950 from customer accounts while she was employed by U.S. Bank in Moscow. She was sentenced to two months imprisonment, four years probation and restitution of $10,950."

A wonderful plea bargain proposal!

Fortunately, Judge Stegner had better ideas.  See below.

So when it comes to the products of the criminal justice system, the watchwords should be "Don't trust us!  Watch us carefully."  

Part of the solution to the problems in the criminal justice system includes having the public become much more aware of what goes on, not less.  To achieve this goal means that a much more vigilant, aggressive media, a much more open and informative law enforcement and prosecutor's office, and a more concerned, involved public is needed.  I offer the Sitler case in toto as evidence for this position.  The criminal justice system is the public's business.  The more information the public are provided about it, the better judgments the public can make and actions they can take.



Sunil also writes with respect to serial pedophile Sitler running around unescorted:

"2.  If he screws around when he is supposed to be going to treatment, perhaps between his treatment provider and the jail personnel, someone will know how to use a PHONE and figure out he isn't where he's supposed to be.  And if this is a violation of his probation, please see No. 1 above."


Keely, Saundra, Donovan, et al, have already commented on the absurdity of this practice.

The claim by Sunil is that if Sitler defiles some child while unescorted he will be caught and go back to jail.

1.    Why should we place any children at risk at all to being assaulted by a serial pedophile undergoing treatment?  Sitler is undergoing treatment.  That means he is not yet cured, if he will ever be.  Is this unescorted practice mean we are using innocent, unaware children as bait to test the ongoing treatment's effectiveness?

2.    Sunil assumes that if Sitler reoffends while unescorted, he will be caught.  It only takes a moment for a pedophile to perform some horribly vile act on a momentarily unattended, surprised child, and then be off before anyone realizes what has happened.  Sitler has demonstrated some really amazing craft so far in his practice of pedophilia.  He has managed to molest children on many occasions while their parents were just a room or so away!  It is folly to think that if he reoffended while unescorted he would certainly get caught.

I appreciate the budgetary concerns of the LCSO in this matter.  We need all the paid officers we have doing more fruitful things than taxiing pedophiles around.  Perhaps an unpaid member of the sheriff's office's reserve or even responsible citizen volunteers could do the escorting.  This would not be a perfect solution, but would offer much more protection to the community than the current practice.

There is another important aspect of this problem, the decision of whether a particular offender is "safe" to be trusted unescorted, but this more appropriately discussed in a detail examination of the Sitler plea bargain.  But just a hint:  How many times have news articles reported that pedophiles have reoffended, including murdering their victims, after they have been pronounced "cured?"


Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com


_______________________________

Friday, June 9, 2006 · Last updated 11:02 a.m. PT

Is justice for sale in Whatcom County?

By GENE JOHNSON
AP LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER

BELLINGHAM, Wash. -- Neither Joshua Sutton nor Joseph Hubbard had any criminal history when they bought $15,000 worth of marijuana from an undercover detective in Whatcom County last year. Both were arrested and charged with unlawful possession with intent to deliver, a felony.

But then their cases diverged dramatically, thanks to a practice which has been routine for nearly three decades in this county on the Canadian border, where federal agents dump reams of drug cases on local officials every year.

Sutton, who put up most or all of the money for the drug buy, paid $9,040 to a fund administered by the Whatcom County prosecutor. He was allowed to plead guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge, received a suspended sentence and went on his way. His payment was nearly double the maximum fine for the misdemeanor.

Hubbard, a construction worker, pleaded guilty as charged and was sentenced to 45 days on a work crew. The felony on his record means he loses the right to vote, and it could affect his ability to land a job for the rest of his life.

Their cases illustrate the inequality of an unusual system in which defendants with quick access to $2,000 or more can often "buy down" the charges against them, many legal experts say. In some cases reviewed by the AP, people caught with several pounds of marijuana pleaded guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges after paying thousands of dollars to the county's fund. In another, a young man caught with less than 2 ounces pleaded guilty to a felony after he failed to pay.

"Yikes, it sounds like the sale of indulgences in the old Catholic church," said Janet Ainsworth, a criminal law professor at Seattle University. "If you were to have a continuum between paying a fine and bribery, this is somewhere in between."

The money, which must be paid up front, is directed to the county's drug enforcement fund. It's disbursed by Prosecutor Dave McEachran with court approval, and is used to buy new equipment for the county's drug task force, to help pay the salaries of certain sheriff's officers, for drug investigations and for drug court. In the past three years, defendants have paid the fund $432,000, McEachran said. McEachran's 10 criminal deputy prosecutors handle about 500 drug cases a year. 


The county keeps all money paid into the drug fund - unlike regular fines, which must be split with the state.

Steven Mura, the presiding judge of Whatcom County Superior Court, said his calendar is often so swamped that he gives only a cursory glance to plea agreements before signing them. He said he would be interested if a lawyer were to challenge drug fund payments as part of plea deals.

"It can appear to be the purchase of a lesser charge," Mura said.

Several lawyers began questioning the practice this spring, after news stories detailed a similar but distinct practice in the central Washington city of Kennewick, where defendants in misdemeanor cases saw their charges dismissed or reduced in exchange for contributions to charities selected by the prosecutor. There, $18,000 in charity contributions vanished.

There are no allegations of missing money in Whatcom County. In interviews with the AP, McEachran defended the practice, which he inaugurated in the late 1970s, as ethically sound. The payments, he argued, should be considered a fine, part of the penalty for the offense - just like restitution in embezzlement cases. In such cases, defendants often get less jail time if they can repay the victims.

But several lawyers, law professors and other prosecutors drew a distinction. This isn't restitution, they said, and it's not a penalty prescribed by law: It's a payment to avoid punishment.

"Plea bargaining isn't always pretty, but this just seems to make a mockery of it," said Helen Anderson, who teaches criminal law at the University of Washington law school.

"You kind of wonder, 'Gee, is this quite right?'" said Bellingham defense attorney Thomas Fryer. "But if you're looking at it as the best possible arrangement for your client, you're not going to just take a stand. If that means a drug fund contribution, so be it."

McEachran insists his prosecutors strive to be fair, and disputes the notion that the system favors those most able to pay: "We just don't see that."

McEachran said his office entered into a deal with Sutton because it had less evidence against him: Though Sutton drove by repeatedly and was in cell phone contact as Hubbard bought the 7 pounds of marijuana, Sutton never touched the drugs. Hubbard was caught red-handed, so he wouldn't have been offered a deal, McEachran said.

The AP found several cases in which people caught with more marijuana than Hubbard made drug fund payments in exchange for reduced charges. Hubbard's lawyer, Andrew Subin of Bellingham, suggested the only reason his client didn't get a deal was because he's poor. He drives a $500 truck and often works seven days a week to support his girlfriend's handicapped child, Subin said.

When Sutton's charge was reduced to a gross misdemeanor, Subin asked the deputy prosecutor, Craig Chambers, "Where's my deal?" Chambers directed an interview request to McEachran, but according to Subin, his response was: "When your guy has $10,000, then we can talk."

"Who's the big player, and who walks away from this getting screwed?" said Subin. He also wondered: If the case against Sutton was so weak, why did it cost him nearly $10,000 to have the charge reduced?

Sutton's lawyer, Jeff Steinborn of Seattle, supports Whatcom County's practice.

"Anything that mitigates the harshness of this insane drug law is a good thing," he said.

Another of Subin's clients, 22-year-old community college student Jesse Gilsoul, pleaded guilty to felony marijuana possession last month for having less than 2 ounces of marijuana. Prosecutors offered him the chance to pay $2,000 to have the charge reduced to a misdemeanor, according to both sides.

Gilsoul, who lost one of his two restaurant jobs following his arrest in December, said he did not have the money. He was sentenced to a month of community service and $1,800 in fines and court costs, to be paid as he is able. He fears the felony, his first offense, will jeopardize his financial aid.

"I wish I did have that rich uncle," Gilsoul said. "Obviously, if I was making a profit off drugs, I could come up with a couple grand real easily."

McEachran had little sympathy, noting that Gilsoul failed a lie-detector test when he said he did not intend to sell the marijuana. But the test was administered after Gilsoul failed to pay the drug fund. If he had come up with the money, the issue of his honesty would never have arisen.

Subin acknowledged that defendants don't necessarily have to pay to have charges reduced - it just helps.

Jon Ostlund, the Whatcom County public defender, said he could think of two cases where charges were reduced because the defendant agreed to perform 240 hours of community service before sentencing. Prompted partly by the AP's reporting, his office held a meeting about the practice recently; staff members said they would like to see more cases in which alternatives to the drug fund payment are accepted.

"If there's a policy that rich people can buy their way out of a case, I don't have the impression that's what's happening here," Ostlund said. But, he added, "I'm sure there are cases where we weren't able to work out something, and maybe they would have been able to if they had more money."

Irwin Schwartz, chairman of the American Bar Association's criminal standards committee, declined to comment on Whatcom County's practice, but said he hopes to form a task force to examine "best practices" for handling drug courts, deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements.

A spokeswoman at the National District Attorneys Association said she had not heard of the practice being used in other states, and Pam Loginsky, a spokeswoman with the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said she had never heard of a county in Washington state negotiating drug fund payments as part of plea deals.

The prosecutor's offices in King, Snohomish, Pierce and Spokane counties all said money is not on the table when they negotiate plea deals.

"We do reduce a lot of felony drug charges to misdemeanor charges, but it's not based on whether you can pay a $1,000 fine," said Joan Cavagnaro, chief criminal deputy prosecutor in Snohomish County. "It's based on the strength of the case."

John Strait, a legal ethics expert at Seattle University Law, said four lawyers have contacted him recently with questions about Whatcom County's practice. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down systems where defendants can choose between paying a fine or doing time, because it often means jail for those who can't afford to pay.

There's also a potential conflict of interest, he said, because McEachran's office is making charging decisions based in part on the money it can obtain for a fund he administers.

"We should be punishing people for what they've done, rather than by who's going to give us money," Strait said.

_____________________________________

Concerned Latah County Citizens,

Below the line is an article from today's (03/27/04) Daily News written by Hillary Hamm.

Does anyone have any concern about the sentence being agreed to by the Latah County Prosecutor's Office?

The is the second offense of a large amount of money stolen by the criminal.  The first crime:  theft of $10,950 from a local bank.  The second crime (pending adjudication):  theft of $6,670 from the Troy 4-H/FFA Booster Organization.  How much lower can you get?

A plea bargain is being offered by the prosecutor's office with no jail time and with a withheld judgment to boot.

Why a plea bargain?  Why no jail time?  Why a withheld judgment?  We are not talking about shoplifting a candy bar from WalMart.  We are talking about two large thefts. Is the Latah county Prosecutor's office running a spa for serious offenders?  What are they thinking?

What message does this proposed sentence send to potential embezzlers?  Does it mean that if you are not caught, all is OK.  If you are caught, you only have to give the money back, but not go to jail and not have a record of the crime.  Sounds like a win-win situation for the criminal.  Will didos like this attract more criminals to Latah County?

Why doesn't the prosecutor's office take the case to trial and let the chips fall where they may?  I thought that was what taxpayers were paying for.

Has the sloth in the county prosecutor's office now reached such a dizzy height that even seasoned law enforcement officers are openly appalled by many of the plea bargains made?

Am I missing something?  Does anyone agree or disagree with the prosecutor's decision?

Please educate me.

Wayne

Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
deco at moscow.com



__________________________________________
Deary woman to face charges of grand theft 


Hillary Hamm

A Deary woman will appear in court May 3 on charges of grand theft. 
Tamara Iverson, 35, has been charged with the felony for allegedly embezzling $6,670 from the Troy 4-H/FFA Booster Organization between January 2000 and January 2003 when she acted as treasurer for the groups. 

Latah County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Michelle Evans said a tentative plea agreement has been reached with Iverson. 

"Basically, we want her to be held accountable to all the victims and the community because she's destroyed a lot of faith and trust in that organization and that needs to be rebuilt," Evans said. 

Iverson's attorney, Gregory Dickison of Moscow, could not be reached for comment. 

The plea agreement states that Iverson will receive a withheld judgment and be placed on probation for an amount of time to be determined by Superior Court Judge John Stegner. 

Iverson also must pay a restitution amount of approximately $5,000, Evans said. She has already voluntarily repaid the booster organization nearly $3,500 within the last year. 

The plea agreement does not include incarceration because of jail time she already served in a similar embezzlement case. 

In June 2003, Iverson was found guilty in a federal court for embezzling $10,950 from customer accounts while she was employed by U.S. Bank in Moscow. She was sentenced to two months imprisonment, four years probation and restitution of $10,950. 

Members of Troy 4-H/FFA Booster Organization reported the latest alleged embezzlement in June. Iverson became treasure of the organization in 1999 and was responsible for the checkbook and bank account until 2003. 


Hillary Hamm can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 228, or by e-mail at hhamm at dnews.com

____________________________________

All,

This is the case of the woman who committed felony grand theft twice in less than a two year period.  Prosecutor William Thompson and defense attorney Gregory Dickinson originally reached a plea bargain for the second offense that called for no jail time and a withheld judgment!  Judge Stegner refused that proposal.  Kudos for Judge Stegner!

Wayne


Troy woman sentenced for felony grand theft 

A Troy woman was sentenced Tuesday to 60 days in jail for felony grand theft. 
Tamara K. Iverson, 36, will begin her jail time today for embezzling more than $6,000 from the Troy 4-H/FFA Booster Organization from January 2000 to January 2003. 

Latah County 2nd District Court Judge John Stegner ordered that Iverson not be allowed work release privileges, and that she be placed on supervised felony probation for five years after her jail time. 

She will be required to undergo mental health treatment and provide 100 hours of community service. 

Stegner also ordered that Iverson not be employed in any position that would allow her to work with financial records, credit agreements or anything connected with youth organizations without the consent of her probation officer. 

Iverson must make written apologies to all 4-H and FFA participants and contributors and pay a restitution amount to be determined at a hearing Tuesday. 

In June 2003, Iverson also was found guilty of embezzling $10,950 from customer accounts while she was employed by U.S. Bank in Moscow. 

She was sentenced to two months imprisonment, four years probation and restitution of $10,950. 



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060612/d5278b07/attachment-0001.htm