Full Version: Creative Justice? Humiliation Probation
From CNN:
I'm not sure of the procedural merit of a judge circumventing a jury's sentence, but I certainly like his approach. While I like the idea here I can't help but wonder if there is a risk that this type of sentencing could get out of control or abused if it turns out to be effective.
Questions for debate:
1) Will this type of innovative punishment be effective?
2) Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
QUOTE
DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A judge slapped a man who played a role in a fatal road rage crash with two jail sentences and a string of restrictions meant to publicly humiliate him after jurors decided only on probation.
State District Judge Keith Dean ordered Frank Dorsett to serve two 180-day terms, drive a car with no more than 130 horsepower, carry a photo of the wreckage, take daily medication that will make him sick if he drinks alcohol and put a bumper sticker on his vehicle asking other motorists to call the probation department if he's driving recklessly.
State District Judge Keith Dean ordered Frank Dorsett to serve two 180-day terms, drive a car with no more than 130 horsepower, carry a photo of the wreckage, take daily medication that will make him sick if he drinks alcohol and put a bumper sticker on his vehicle asking other motorists to call the probation department if he's driving recklessly.
I'm not sure of the procedural merit of a judge circumventing a jury's sentence, but I certainly like his approach. While I like the idea here I can't help but wonder if there is a risk that this type of sentencing could get out of control or abused if it turns out to be effective.
Questions for debate:
1) Will this type of innovative punishment be effective?
2) Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
Will this type of innovative punishment be effective?
I'd think it depends on how suseptable someone is to public criticism/humiliation. He was charged with aggravated assault and hit-and-run; it's anyone's guess.
Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
The only serious problem I have with his additional sentence is forcing him to take any drug. Considering he is competent enough to stand trial he shouldn't be ordered to take medication against his will. I would appeal this.
If the jury felt probation was good enough for Dorsett, what will the judge think up when Scott, the man who actually lost control of his vehicle and collided with Rachel Blasingame's car, killing her, goes to trial?
Is this what Ashcroft had in mind when he made mandatory minimums mandatory?
I'd think it depends on how suseptable someone is to public criticism/humiliation. He was charged with aggravated assault and hit-and-run; it's anyone's guess.
Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
The only serious problem I have with his additional sentence is forcing him to take any drug. Considering he is competent enough to stand trial he shouldn't be ordered to take medication against his will. I would appeal this.
If the jury felt probation was good enough for Dorsett, what will the judge think up when Scott, the man who actually lost control of his vehicle and collided with Rachel Blasingame's car, killing her, goes to trial?
Is this what Ashcroft had in mind when he made mandatory minimums mandatory?
1) Will this type of innovative punishment be effective?
I don't know, but I think "poetic justice" has its place.
I remember hearnig on a news cast many years ago that a Chicago judge had sentenced a slumlord to live in one of his own dumps for 30 days. I hope he saw lots of rats during his stay. This sentence, in my opinion, was fitting.
to the judge
I don't know, but I think "poetic justice" has its place.
I remember hearnig on a news cast many years ago that a Chicago judge had sentenced a slumlord to live in one of his own dumps for 30 days. I hope he saw lots of rats during his stay. This sentence, in my opinion, was fitting.
to the judge
I have read about many sentences like this, strangely they have all occurred in Texas, like the one where a judge ordered a man to live in a dog house.
1) Will this type of innovative punishment be effective?
I think it will, just from personal experience. After my last collision back in October I totalled out my car and put three people, including myself, in the hospital. Although I was only partially at fault I keep an insurance photo in my new car to remind me of how dangerous driving can be. It's easy to forget how dangerous driving 80 mph when you are inside of your bubble. Ever since that accident my girlfriend has complained about my slow overly cautious driving technique, even though I was the one to teach her how to drive aggressively in the first place.
In this case I agree with the judge because they the punishment not only fits the crime, it serves as a constant reminder of the consequences of the actions rather then just taking a defensive driving class and forgetting it later.
Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
I wouldn't necessarily call it "judicial activism", its' more of a publicity stunt. You see Texas is a wonderful state where the judges are not appointed but elected, so as they say "any publicity is good publicity."
1) Will this type of innovative punishment be effective?
I think it will, just from personal experience. After my last collision back in October I totalled out my car and put three people, including myself, in the hospital. Although I was only partially at fault I keep an insurance photo in my new car to remind me of how dangerous driving can be. It's easy to forget how dangerous driving 80 mph when you are inside of your bubble. Ever since that accident my girlfriend has complained about my slow overly cautious driving technique, even though I was the one to teach her how to drive aggressively in the first place.
In this case I agree with the judge because they the punishment not only fits the crime, it serves as a constant reminder of the consequences of the actions rather then just taking a defensive driving class and forgetting it later.
Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
I wouldn't necessarily call it "judicial activism", its' more of a publicity stunt. You see Texas is a wonderful state where the judges are not appointed but elected, so as they say "any publicity is good publicity."
1) Will this type of innovative punishment be effective?
Maybe. Different aspects of punishment will deter different types of criminal. Some need rehabilitation. Some need humiliation. Some need just to be locked away for a long time. And, unfashionable (and uncharacteristically "right wing"?) though it may superfically seem, some need to be beaten to within an inch of their lives.
Before anyone asks for my subscription to the hang-'em-and-flog-'em society, let me say that the problem with corporal punishment (and one of the problems with capital punishment) is that even with discretionary sentencing, human nature leads the public, and certain courts and certain judges, to over emphasise one type of punishment.
We all like to generalise, and we are all creatures of habit. If flogging works on one case of sheep theft... we'll, it's bound to work on all of them, isn't it? Add to that the modern media's coverage of cases tending not to go into the detailed nuances of each case, instead using somewhat simplistic headlines summaries (or worse, in the tabloids), and it's easy to see how things get out of hand.
If you don't believe me, just look at prison sentences. Even with all the other options of community rehabilitation, probation, tagging, what-have-you, and such-and-such, the public still doesn't seem to think that an offender has been properly punished until they have worn a suit with arrows on it and broken rocks in the hot sun. And juries (and judges) are drawn from the public. This is in spite of the fact that this view of prison is at least 50 years out of date anyway, and regardless of whether the particular punishment will have any impact at all on the particular offender's likelihood of doing it again when they get out.
And even after all that, I maintain that punishment is not a deterrent to crime anyway. I think crimes fall into two categories - those that are committed on impulse with no thought, in which case no thought is given to any consequences; and those that are planned, in which case the perpetrators doesn't hope not to be punished, they hope not to be caught.
Everyone knows that one is dependent on the other - you can't be punished if you haven't been caught, can you? We just seem to forget this obvious dependency when we think about punishment - "hang 'em" - which just means we haven't really thought about it ourselves, it seems to me.
I think more policemen and, in particular, more and better detectives would be a greater deterrant than five or ten extra years in jail if they get caught and if they then get found guilty at trial.
2) Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
From reading the quoted material, I don't think the judge has changed the jury's verdict, but has changed their sentence. Given my misgivings about jury sentencing outlined below, I don't see this as a problem.
I'm nervous of juries deciding sentencing full stop. I would much rather that juries limit themselves to deciding guilt or innocence, and allow judges to dish out the sentences in accordance with published guidelines for each jurisdiction. They have to be guidelines so that judges can tweak sentences up or down to fit the crime.
And like you, I think this risks being the thin end of the wedge. The first mental image I got reading the opening post was that of someone in the stocks on the village green having rotting vegetables thrown at them. I think we as a society have outgrown the need for such things, don't you? (The social need hasn't gone altogether, which explains the popularity of reality TV shows like "Big Brother" or "Survivor".)
Maybe. Different aspects of punishment will deter different types of criminal. Some need rehabilitation. Some need humiliation. Some need just to be locked away for a long time. And, unfashionable (and uncharacteristically "right wing"?) though it may superfically seem, some need to be beaten to within an inch of their lives.
Before anyone asks for my subscription to the hang-'em-and-flog-'em society, let me say that the problem with corporal punishment (and one of the problems with capital punishment) is that even with discretionary sentencing, human nature leads the public, and certain courts and certain judges, to over emphasise one type of punishment.
We all like to generalise, and we are all creatures of habit. If flogging works on one case of sheep theft... we'll, it's bound to work on all of them, isn't it? Add to that the modern media's coverage of cases tending not to go into the detailed nuances of each case, instead using somewhat simplistic headlines summaries (or worse, in the tabloids), and it's easy to see how things get out of hand.
If you don't believe me, just look at prison sentences. Even with all the other options of community rehabilitation, probation, tagging, what-have-you, and such-and-such, the public still doesn't seem to think that an offender has been properly punished until they have worn a suit with arrows on it and broken rocks in the hot sun. And juries (and judges) are drawn from the public. This is in spite of the fact that this view of prison is at least 50 years out of date anyway, and regardless of whether the particular punishment will have any impact at all on the particular offender's likelihood of doing it again when they get out.
And even after all that, I maintain that punishment is not a deterrent to crime anyway. I think crimes fall into two categories - those that are committed on impulse with no thought, in which case no thought is given to any consequences; and those that are planned, in which case the perpetrators doesn't hope not to be punished, they hope not to be caught.
Everyone knows that one is dependent on the other - you can't be punished if you haven't been caught, can you? We just seem to forget this obvious dependency when we think about punishment - "hang 'em" - which just means we haven't really thought about it ourselves, it seems to me.
I think more policemen and, in particular, more and better detectives would be a greater deterrant than five or ten extra years in jail if they get caught and if they then get found guilty at trial.
2) Is the judge warranted in changing the jury's verdict or is this an invitation to judicial activism?
From reading the quoted material, I don't think the judge has changed the jury's verdict, but has changed their sentence. Given my misgivings about jury sentencing outlined below, I don't see this as a problem.
QUOTE
I'm not sure of the procedural merit of a judge circumventing a jury's sentence, but I certainly like his approach. While I like the idea here I can't help but wonder if there is a risk that this type of sentencing could get out of control or abused if it turns out to be effective.
I'm nervous of juries deciding sentencing full stop. I would much rather that juries limit themselves to deciding guilt or innocence, and allow judges to dish out the sentences in accordance with published guidelines for each jurisdiction. They have to be guidelines so that judges can tweak sentences up or down to fit the crime.
And like you, I think this risks being the thin end of the wedge. The first mental image I got reading the opening post was that of someone in the stocks on the village green having rotting vegetables thrown at them. I think we as a society have outgrown the need for such things, don't you? (The social need hasn't gone altogether, which explains the popularity of reality TV shows like "Big Brother" or "Survivor".)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.