Hot News!
• TIF and The Banks: Tax Dollar Boondoggle?
• The 60th Anniversary of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 May 17, 9:30am - 12:30pm The 2008 Day of Dialogue Series- Education and the Common Good: Six Dialogues on Six Critical Issues: Health Care, Economic Development, Education, Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform and Foriegn Policy. Join us at the First Unitiarin Church, 536 Linton Street. All Are Welcome at these free events, reservations requested. |
Monday, May 19th, 6-7pm Cincinnati Progressive United’s 1st planning meeting, Bond Hill Branch Library, 1740 Langdon Farm Rd. at Jordan Crossing
|
June 28, 9am - 5pm Nonviolent Peacemaking Workshop, Presented by the Michigan Peace Team, Peaslee Neighborhood Center, call 579-8547 to sign up |
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Rapid Purge Process Proposal Makes Sense
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
Yesterday, I had an opportunity to speak with former Cincinnati Councilman Charlie Winburn about the Rapid Purge Process Proposal he has co-authored with Judge Nadine Allen. Winburn actually makes tons of sense on this issue, and let’s not forget that we’re talking about lock-em-up Charlie—who used to do things such as holding up handcuffs on the campaign trail to talk about how he wants to be tough on crime. I don’t think he’s suddenly gone soft on crime. On the contrary, he simply realizes that people with ten year old warrants for petty crimes are not a threat, and instead they are costing money and plugging up the system. Everyone should be on board with this proposal.
Naturally, the new chair of the Hamilton County Republican Party—Alex Triantafilous—opposes the plan, writing on his blog the typical extremist rhetoric that has characterized his short tenure as leader of the local GOP. He writes:
This is one of the most outrageous things I’ve read for some time. Firstly, how does one “avoid the courts” for seven years? And remember, we are talking about petty offenses here. If someone has “avoided the courts” for seven years after committing a petty offense, that’s probably a sign that the individual in question is not a threat in the least. Seven years is a long time, but Trianafilou acts like this is some kind of free pass for dangerous criminals.
In the Winburn-Allen report, this particular point is refuted anyway:
Triantafilous attempts to respond to this thinking:
Even if 80%-85% of “stale” cases are ultimately dismissed by the court--so what! Under this plan, we will not successfully prosecute 20% of criminal offenders that DESERVE TO BE PROSECUTED. That is not a good plan and it sends the wrong message.
Time and again, I watched victims of crime come to my courtroom and patiently wait for lawyers and defendants to appear in court. The victim took time away from work, waited in a security line at 8:00 a.m. in downtown, paid to park and waited patiently in a crowded courtroom. Often times, the Defendant did not appear. Victims left frustrated--and rightfully so. This plan tells that victim that 7 years later, that Defendant will be excused on a case like theft or criminal damaging. It is wrong and unjust.
The plan certainly amounts to amnesty. I reject it and urge all Republicans to do so.
One must certain wonder at the real numbers here. Exactly how many so-called victims feel “vindicated” a decade after suffering from “criminal damaging”? And how do these numbers compare to the overall costs, burdens, and whatnot getting levied against an inefficient “justice” system?
Triantafilou’s descriptions are noteworthy. He’s really trying to get us to feel bad for the person who had to suffer so many burdens—like paying to park a car—as a way to make us hold onto some sort of rage against a ten year old petty offense. That’s a long time to hold a grudge!
So if I have to pick a Republican on this issue, I’m siding with Charlie Winburn. His proposal is humane, sensible, and it addresses issues with improving the efficiency of the local justice system.
Here’s the plan:
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!
28 Apr 2008 at 05:47 pm | #
Too many open questions. Would this really save as much money as he predicts.
1. How many people are actually jailed that have 7 year old warrants. Winburn seems to put it at minimum one jail night per dismissed case. Is it that many?
2. If they are held overnight for trial then the other question is what happened to the talk about bringing back night court so many of these misdemeanors could be addressed quickly and would night require overnight jail stays?
2. He mentioned amnesty. Why not offer amnesty for a set period just prior to the 7 years being up and allowing someone to pay a fine/or do community service based on the crime?