Monday, April 16, 2007

Towards a Brave New Jail

Posted by Michael Earl Patton

There is a movement towards a new justice system in Hamilton County, one that is based on the premise that technology is a substitute for seeing things with our own eyes.  It holds that contact with family members and community is not beneficial to the person arrested. Concrete walls should be used not only to keep the prisoner in, but to prevent contact with the family and community.  This is a brave new concept in criminal justice.

The latest jail plan will avoid the inconvenience of having the prisoner brought before the judge for arraignment.  Instead of pleading guilty or not guilty in person, or to have the bail set, the prisoner can stay within the jail.  The court will use a video hook-up with the new jail and the prisoner can enter a plea without ever entering the courtroom.  The prisoner will then avoid all contact with the public and family members. All that support which is inherent when others who care about you show up will be absent.  The prisoner can just concentrate instead on the video image of the judge.  And the judge and the public will not have the distraction of seing the whole person, the non-verbal “body language,” and the activity of the people holding him.  They can just focus on the words “guilty, your Honor.”

Mutual eye-to-eye contact will be avoided.  The prisoner, if he looked directly at the camera, couldn’t look directly at the judge’s image on the monitor.  And if the prisoner looked directly at the judge’s image on the monitor, the judge wouldn’t be able to look at the prisoner in the eye from the courtroom monitor.  Of course, the same thing would at the judge’s end, too, so it all cancels out.  This eye-to-eye contact thing is over-rated, anyhow.

If the video link goes down for some reason during the proceedings the public will know that it will be re-established shortly and that, by definition, nothing of consequence will have happened during the time the link is interrupted.  Or that nothing of consequence will be happening just off-camera.  By definition.

Of course, there are problems to be worked out.  Some may get out on bail before the formal arraignment.  People with enough money to post bond and to have a private lawyer will probably still insist on seeing the judge in a courtroom.  It does seem silly to make both of them go all the way to the jail just so they can have the same video link as those who could not afford bail.  And public defenders, already over-worked, will probably have to spend more time at the jail meeting with their clients instead of in the courthouse.  Or they could stay at the courthouse and trust that no one would be listening in on their conversations with their client.  No one would, would they?

This technology promises to improve safety and lower costs.  There can be no argument about the importance of lowering costs in the justice system.  We have heard many times about the need for providing more jail spaces and how operating costs will go up as we increase the jail population.  If cutting corners means more jail beds, then it is a net positive for Hamilton County.  As for improving safety, it should be self-evident that the dangerous jaywalkers and pot-smokers are best kept locked up and should not be allowed near a judge if it can at all be helped.

In fact, these people belong in jail, which is the place for guilty people even if they haven’t yet been convicted.  This will help the prisoners form the proper attitude towards their situation.  The courtroom itself is a kind of neutral territory where by long tradition the guilt of the person is not presupposed and there are many visitors who themselves are presumed innocent.  If the prisoners were brought into the courtroom itself, they might be more likely to plead not guilty.

So promising is this technology that it looks like at least some personal visits with the prisoners will be replaced by video visits.  After all, there is already a glass partition between the prisoners and visitors now.  The glowing video monitor would be basically the same effect, just not as high resolution and not from the same perspective.  As with video arraignment, the positions of the camera and monitor would preclude any meaningful eye-to-eye contact.  This may make the prisoner appear more shifty-eyed than normal, but being a criminal—even if not yet convicted—the visitors will surely accept this.

To find out more about this proposal I am sending the following letter to County Commissioner David Pepper:

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account 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! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Jailocrat says:
16 Apr 2007  at  07:34 pm | #

Another fine job Mr. Patton!

What??? says:
16 Apr 2007  at  09:03 pm | #

You can’t be serious… This is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard. Mr. Patton, do everyone a favor and stick to issues you have at least a little bit of knowledge about. Go back to the Fountain Square Garage or something.

anon2000 says:
16 Apr 2007  at  10:52 pm | #

MEP, as always, I admire your dedication to the issue of the new criminal justice complex, but I would support video conferencing arraignments if they have been held constitutional, as long as they are equally applied.

I think one thing that people aren’t catching is that if you have been locked up pending arraignment, or any hearing, that even if the judge orders you released on an OR bond you still have to go back to the jail to be “processed out” which takes a ridiculous 5 to 6 hours.  If the inmates are video conferenced I think it will greatly reduce the amount of time it takes to complete this “processing” process—and, having been to jail recently, I sure would have welcomed the expedited release.

says:
17 Apr 2007  at  05:53 am | #

You can’t be serious… This is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard.

The problem is that he is serious, and the idea is not his—but these video conferencing concepts are set to replace human contact.

What happens when you remove the human element?

Did the Harlow wire monkey mother experiments teach us anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow

Patton’s Huxleyan warning is spot-on.

says:
17 Apr 2007  at  07:13 am | #

"The problem is that he is serious...”
Dean, I agree with this.

“Did the Harlow wire monkey mother experiments teach us anything?”
Dean, we are not talking about infants who haven’t formed a maternal bond yet; we are talking about adults accused of a crime.  It is not the criminal justice systems job to create a warm fuzzy feeling for people in the system.  If a person is guilty; they should plead guilty; and if they are not, then innocent is the way to go.  I fail to see how a video link is going to cause someone to plead guilty if they are not.

????????????? says:
17 Apr 2007  at  07:41 am | #

This entire bizarre piece seems to come enitrely from one or two lines from one page of a multi-page powerpoint.  Mr. Patton writes a commissioner to ask more details, but before even getting an answer, writes a long, strange column describing in detail a new Hamilton County system that has not yet been created, and for which he has not even received answers to his questions (because he asked those questions the same day he wrote this piece).

This blog laudably points out flaws in journalism.  This piece, unfortunately, would make a good case study.

says:
17 Apr 2007  at  07:51 am | #

… I would support video conferencing arraignments if they have been held constitutional, as long as they are equally applied.—from anon2000, #3

This is too new to be fully tested in court.  From what I have found, some jurisdictions have allowed them while others have said a guilty plea may not be valid if it is done via video.  Then the question comes as to whether one can waive one’s right to an in-person hearing and whether THAT can be done via video hook-up.  Other critics have wondered if video arraignment would be equally applied, and if it is not it may not be constitutional on those grounds.  My article is based entirely on concerns others have raised.  I could not find a U.S. Supreme Court decision on this matter.

I could not find any court history at all as to whether the prohibition of in-person visiting is constitutional.  I find the concept revolting myself, and I do not know if Hamilton County’s proposal would allow in-person visiting.  Video can be a benefit if one is “visiting” someone in a state prison and would otherwise have to travel hundreds of miles.  But what is happening elsewhere is that the visitor still has to travel to the county jail to do a video visit of someone in that jail, and in-person visits are generally not allowed.

I am very concerned that the spin for the new, improved jail is that we will be using “best practices” from around the country, yet everything I have seen so far will dehumanize the prisoners even more.  Our civil rights are being rapidly eroded, both locally and at the federal level.  We are told repeatedly that the ends (War on Terror, War on Crime, War on Drugs) justify the means. 

I think one thing that people aren’t catching is that if you have been locked up pending arraignment, or any hearing, that even if the judge orders you released on an OR bond you still have to go back to the jail to be “processed out” which takes a ridiculous 5 to 6 hours.

I did not know it takes that long, nor can I understand why it should.  If the judge orders you released on an OR (own recognizance, i.e., no money) bond, you should go back just to get your own stuff and leave.  If your stuff is at Queensgate they should give you a ride to get your stuff.  The police should already have all the information they need.

If it already takes 5 to 6 hours to be processed out, I wouldn’t count on it being any shorter if video arraignment happens.  I can well imagine the police waiting until a courier delivers a stamped copy of the orders before they release someone.

Anon says:
17 Apr 2007  at  01:32 pm | #

Maybe as part of the Pepper plan we could just suspend the presumption of innocence. If we did that just think of all the savings. No arraignment, trial, bond, public defenders, judges or lawyers. But wait, if we did that we would be surrendering the illusion of justice that we now enjoy. And, we would have lawyers out of work. Can’t have lawyers putting other lawyers out of a job, the club needs it’s members.

says:
17 Apr 2007  at  01:55 pm | #

This entire bizarre piece seems to come enitrely from one or two lines from one page of a multi-page powerpoint.—from ?????????????, #6

Actually, no.  I drew heavily from other sources, including an April 2001 article on tele-immersion in Scientific American.  Tele-immersion aims to correct for many of the defects of simple video hook-ups.  Sophisticated computer programs and massive capacity are required.  This is still in the development stage, but even if it becomes mainstream there would probably be concerns if it were to be used in the judicial system.  There is no substitute for person-to-person contact.  We are nowhere close to the Star Trek holodeck.

I have also heard Mr. Pepper speak many times about how he and Mr. Portune are researching the best practices in use around the country, and how details will be forthcoming in the next few months.  This is one of the few details to be released.  Another one is that community-based treatment programs will be closed down and moved into the new jail.  The aim is to treat someone arrested for DUI (not necessarily convicted yet) as a criminal first and foremost, and then secondarily as someone who needs treatment.  I am very concerned as to how Mssrs. Pepper and Portune judge what is a “best practice.”

And yet we are asked to approve a sales tax increase so that we can build a new jail and advance to this brave new world.  But not to worry about the lack of details released—they will be forthcoming AFTER the tax is hopefully passed.  That has been the typical response.

anon2000 says:
17 Apr 2007  at  07:15 pm | #

the truth is, I have seen this pair do more for Hamilton County and the city in a few short months than I have seen their predecessors do in decades.

I am amazed, and yes, a fan - we can not pin our past experiences with politicians the likes of Heimlich, DeWhine, Bedinghaus and Finney on this new Board - it is a new era and they have earned every vote and continue to earn a growing respect—cynicism (sp) is at its ugliest when we make presumptions without cause.

MEP raises very important issues - even the smallest details (like being innocent) are important when locked up in jail.  MEP is right - family connections is very important, integral at the bonding, sentencing, shock / early release and regarding recidism (sp?).  But must be balanced with fairness, speed, justice and yes, cost.

MEP’s efforts, hopefully will result in careful consideration of even the smallest issues when final decisions are to be made.  Presuming untrustworthiness doesn’t figure in the dialogue.Just once, when Pepper or Portune betray our trust, that’s when we may have cause - so far - they have been true to the voters.

anon2007 says:
17 Apr 2007  at  08:42 pm | #

anon2000, these guys have records and they aren’t so hot. It was Pepper that first proposed the marijuana ordinance that Portune has said is a major cause of overcrowding in the jail. He voted to tase 7 year old children. He gave away an enormous amount of millions in corporate welfare. Have you ever wondered why the budget is so tight? Portune just did robocalls for Jeff Bengal Berding because calling himself is beneath Berding. A Republican!I could go on but I’ll leave it there for now.

Anybody that trusts any politician is a blind fool. They’ve earned nothing and were only elected because of their ability to raise big $$$$$! Cha Ching!!!

says:
18 Apr 2007  at  07:00 am | #

"The aim is to treat someone arrested for DUI (not necessarily convicted yet) as a criminal first and foremost, and then secondarily as someone who needs treatment.”

How is this different from the current system?

Anon says:
18 Apr 2007  at  10:53 am | #

JFD,

That is precisely the point. A new fancy building will do nothing to correct the problems. If we, as a city, believe “liberty and justice for all,” then we cannot accept the current proposal. If we just go along then the broken system continues to be broken, the difference is we have a new tax to pay for irresponsible decisions made by the County Commission.

says:
18 Apr 2007  at  12:57 pm | #

“The aim is to treat someone arrested for DUI (not necessarily convicted yet) as a criminal first and foremost, and then secondarily as someone who needs treatment.”

How is this different from the current system? —from JFD, #11

It differs in two ways.  First, the proposed system would have the prisoner locked up in a high-security jail cell most of the time, being taken out of the cell for treatment.  The treatment would still take place inside the prison.  Right now the person is treated off-site and its more of a group home.  They are kept locked inside the facility, but not behind bars in separate cells.  And the facility itself does not look like a jail.  The Turning Point facilty, for example, is in a residential neighborhood and looks like a large house.

Second, one does not go to this facility unless one is found guilty.  I heard talk during the task force meetings last year of having the prisoners being able to “volunteer” for the treatment while they are waiting for their court date.  Over half the people in prison are in this category.  The idea was that they would complete the probable sentence by the time they saw the judge, so then the judge could just let them go.  I don’t think this idea has died.  Moving everything inside the jail just makes it easier to implement.

As regards to other possible solutions, such as more public defenders or judges so the prisoners would not have to wait so long, I have heard nothing other than they still need to look into them.

It comes down to how one conceives the idea of a range of punishments.  I think there should be a range from community-based treatment for people whose primary problem is substance abuse to long-term incarceration for those who have shown themselves to be dangerous to others.  Others hold that everyone, even jaywalkers, need to go to a high-security prison and only within that prison will they be sorted out as to what treatment, if any, they need.  The prison punishment itself would basically be the same for everyone, differing only by length of sentence.

What??? says:
18 Apr 2007  at  06:23 pm | #

Mr. Patton, I implore you: please stop talking about things you have absolutely no knowledge of. I had no idea you were so clairvoyant. Last time I checked, the Commissioners hadn’t even introduced an overall plan yet, let alone outlined every detailed programing and rehabilitaiton issue, such as the best treatment options for DUI offenders, which I believe is the job of the newly formed Criminal Justice Commission. Please don’t continue to make false statements and assume you already have the detailed knowledge on how every aspect of the entire criminal justice system is going to be run and operated. What you’re doing is simply disingenuous.

says:
18 Apr 2007  at  08:56 pm | #

Mr. Patton, I implore you: please stop talking about things you have absolutely no knowledge of… Last time I checked, the Commissioners hadn’t even introduced an overall plan yet, let alone outlined every detailed programing and rehabilitaiton issue, such as the best treatment options for DUI offenders, which I believe is the job of the newly formed Criminal Justice Commission… Please don’t continue to make false statements ...—from What??, #15

What false statements?  The Beacon format allows anyone with fuller knowledge to post corrections.  Please don’t keep the information to yourself.

The commissioners are talking about a plan.  Why can’t I talk about their plan?  And if I do, should I be restricted to only their talking points?  Why can’t I do a little research on my own and report the experiences and concerns of others?

Or are you denying that this is a democracy?  That we are not citizens, but subjects?  That freedom of the press is not compatible with the War on Crime?  That every article must be reviewed by the government agency on which it reports before publication?

I tend to report on things that are not reported elsewhere in the local media.  And I tend to write based on my own viewpoint.  I am not working as some kind of free press agent for the commissioners.  I sign my work, and stand behind it.  The citizens have the right to know NOW what concerns others have about video arraignment and video visitation.  If not now, when?

The change in DUI treatment has been in the published plans for many months.  The Reading Road and Turning Point facilities would be closed and their bed spaces would be incorporated into the new jail.  Or am I not supposed to comment based on the supposition that the plans might change?  Once again I ask, if I cannot comment now, then when can I?

Say What???? says:
18 Apr 2007  at  09:37 pm | #

I agree, this criticism is way too premature - when we have a ballot issue or a plan put on the table, then tear it apart if it is ill-conceived - but building an anti-criminal justice system without all the facts is irresponsible!
Let’s see what our newly elected board has to offer and then critique it responsibly and understanding that everything won’t be done all at once.

says:
19 Apr 2007  at  05:43 am | #

The facts are that Patton has noticed something in the plan as it currently exists—and as Pepper and Portune have distributed it.  If all the naysayers here (who have nothing to say, really, except to insult Patton with no substance behind their complaints) think Patton should not “comment” until he has all the “facts”—then maybe the Commissioners should not push for a special election in August for a plan that apparently does not exist.

Anon says:
19 Apr 2007  at  09:18 am | #

Thank you MEP for taking an interest in our community and our people in need. It is obvious that the comments that have questioned your post are either the weak ass Pepper or one of his staff. In the past we have been given the plan from on high and nobody spoke out because they never had a forum in which to do so. If anybody did speak up they were never heard or reported by the media and therefore were isolated and squelched. A new day is dawning in Cincinnati and the Beacon is lighting the way through the all volunteer staff. Transparency is something that does not go away after the election just because the commissioner changes his mind about it.

Keep up the good work! Thank you.

Dem Wit says:
19 Apr 2007  at  01:27 pm | #

Mr. Patton, I implore you: stop reading the plan and thinking for yourself. Your little fact finding mission is turning up too many little facts that don’t sound good, but we can rest assured that our Commissioners will fix everything because they are the “experts” that know things and talk to other “experts” that know the same things. Are you saying we shouldn’t just blindly trust them because they are using progressive language to push regressive policies?

Your research is simply confusing matters with troublesome facts and who needs that? If Commissioner Pepper can get lights, wires, painted stripes and poles at the purple people bridge for only $400,000 just think what could be done with all of this money from a new tax.

Dean just vote for it, they’ll figure it out after the election, after all they’re not as bad as the Republicans. Are they?

divide and conquer says:
19 Apr 2007  at  08:38 pm | #

MEP’s work is commendable and productive - the attacks and incinuations is self-defeating.
Generally, I find the “problem” with the video conferencing, extremely weak - MEP usually raises issues of greater substance, this one happens to be a klinker.
What I really don’t like is that we think it is constructive to be in “attack mode” in order to BE constructive.
Must there be a villian? a bad guy in order to make a point?
There isn’t one here - only room for improvements on a great concept that will undoubtably need fine tuning.
Dividing and conquering accomplishes nothing - except gives the low-lying Finney’s, Heimlich’s and DeWine’s room to navigate.
Failure to find another way, a constructive way, is beginning to sound more like a campaign not mission.

says:
19 Apr 2007  at  09:11 pm | #

I think the whole video arraignment thing is aces, and I’ll bet the poor think so too.  I mean where else are they going to get the chance to go down the high tech highway?  I’m thinking they will also like the idea that they can get their sentence out of the way before they even get to court.  MEP do you know any poor alcoholics on a personal level?  Have you asked them what they think about any of this; or are you speaking for them from on high?

“Others hold that everyone, even jaywalkers, need to go to a high-security prison”

Who exactly are these “others”?

says:
20 Apr 2007  at  06:30 am | #

JFD, if you were in jail, would you like your family to actually see you, or just an image of you on a TV screen?

says:
20 Apr 2007  at  08:07 am | #

I’m thinking they will also like the idea that they can get their sentence out of the way before they even get to court.  MEP do you know any poor alcoholics on a personal level?—from JFD, #22

Why should poor alcoholics be denied the rights that non-alcoholics with more money have, especially the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?  I am relectant to answer your question because it implies that only if I personally know such a case am I qualified to protest.  The rich, under that assumption, do not have to be concerned about the poor if they do not know any.

Let’s see, you say that maybe poor alcoholics would prefer being suddenly arrested, their car left far from home, lose their job, lose their apartment, and being kept locked until they have completed their sentence, and only then being allowed to plead guilty and go home.  You say they may prefer all that to being released, taking care of affairs, and maybe even challenging the arrest in court and not serving time.

I think the burden is on you to find “ppor alcoholics” who prefer that.  I’ll allow you to even quote a study saying that that is their preference.  I won’t challenge you to go and get to personally know some “poor alcoholics” yourself.

“Others hold that everyone, even jaywalkers, need to go to a high-security prison”

Who exactly are these “others”?

The elimination of the Turning Point and Reading Road treatment facilities, and the incorporation of their bed spaces into the proposed high-security jail, has been a key proposal of both jail plans—the one that was defeated last year and the one on the table now.  It is used in the calculations to determine the size of the proposed facility.  Look for the most enthusiastic backers of these plans to see who the “others” are.

Jailocrat says:
20 Apr 2007  at  11:06 am | #

"MEP’s work is commendable and productive - the attacks and incinuations is self-defeating.”

divide and conquer, MEP’s work is commendable and the weak attacks and incinuations are self defeating so quit launching them at MEP and everybody that points out how flawed this rushed “concept” really is.

“What I really don’t like is that we think it is constructive to be in “attack mode” in order to BE constructive”.

You haven’t seen attack mode yet you weak little troll, keep “attacking” MEP and your boys are really gonna get the heat turned up on them in ways they can’t imagine.

“Must there be a villian? a bad guy in order to make a point?”

Kind of a silly question to ask as your pushing a jail and trying to make Mr. Patton out to be a bad guy because he’s actually paying attention, asking questions and pointing out how ill conceived this so called “comprehensive” plan
is. The only thing “comprehensive” is the BS being used to push it.

“There isn’t one here - only room for improvements on a great concept that will undoubtably need fine tuning.”

There’s only room for this crappy concept in the garabage can where this plan belongs and should be returned. No means no and oPurtune and Pepper will be taught a lesson.

“Dividing and conquering accomplishes nothing - except gives the low-lying Finney’s, Heimlich’s and DeWine’s room to navigate.”

Here you go with this tired ass routine about Heimlich, Dewine and Finney. They don’t matter. They are constantly conjured up to say ‘hey we aren’t as bad as those guys, you can trust us because we’re Democrats’. We’re not falling for that crap, oPortune got Republican Jeff Bengal Berding nominated and their Republican friend Pepper helped too. 

“Failure to find another way, a constructive way, is beginning to sound more like a campaign not mission.”

Shoving the jail down our throats in a $1.6 million dollar special election is nothing more than an attempt to sneak it by when poor people wont be at the polls. Your mission and campaign are Shameless!

says:
20 Apr 2007  at  12:04 pm | #

The Dean of Cincinnati says:
20 Apr 2007 at 06:30 am | #
JFD, if you were in jail, would you like your family to actually see you, or just an image of you on a TV screen?

I don’t anticipate spending any time in jail, but if for some reason I landed there, I wouldn’t want anyone including my family, to see me; live or otherwise.

says:
20 Apr 2007  at  12:38 pm | #

Michael Earl Patton says:
20 Apr 2007 at 08:07 am
Let’s see, you say that maybe poor alcoholics would prefer being suddenly arrested, their car left far from home, lose their job, lose their apartment, and being kept locked until they have completed their sentence, and only then being allowed to plead guilty and go home.  You say they may prefer all that to being released, taking care of affairs, and maybe even challenging the arrest in court and not serving time.

You said there is a program that allows them to volunteer to do treatment prior to being found guilty and sentenced to treatment.  They have choices to make that will affect their lives.  The first is whether or not to drink and drive.  If they make the right choice here, there are no choices to make about how to navigate the criminal justice system.  After they choose to drive drunk, being arrested and leaving their car behind, and all of the rest, happens a result of their first choice.  In what world does your interpretation of the the legal process happen?  Nobody has ever had to serve their sentance prior to their araignment, where bond is set and their plea is entered.

says:
21 Apr 2007  at  07:10 am | #

You said there is a program that allows them to volunteer to do treatment prior to being found guilty and sentenced to treatment....After they choose to drive drunk, being arrested and leaving their car behind, and all of the rest, happens a result of their first choice....Nobody has ever had to serve their sentance prior to their araignment, where bond is set and their plea is entered.—from JFD, #

First, I actually said that such a program was discussed at the jail task force meetings last Summer.  I did not say that it is currently in place, only that moving all treatment to the jail would enable this to happen.

Second, I had thought I lived in a country where one was presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Just because a police officer arrests you does not mean that you are guilty, even in the case of a DUI arrest.

Third, people have been sentenced to time served by the time they see a judge and plead guilty.  I am not talking about the initial appearance which may happen just hours after arrest.  In that case almost everyone pleads “not guilty” as a formality, and Ohio court procedures do not allow a plea at that point if one has been arrested for a felony.  I personally know of someone who was arrested, given a high enough bond at his initial appearance (it was in the thousands) that he could not make bail, had to wait 28 days for his court date where he pled guilty, was sentenced to time served, and released.  That is the sort of thing about which I am talking.

says:
21 Apr 2007  at  08:44 am | #

MEP
Changing ones plea at trial from, not guilty, to guilty is different than what you said.  You made no mention of a previous plea.

I can’t understand your oposition to a plan that gives an added option to those who can’t afford bail, and will probably be ordered to undergo treatment as part of their DUI sentence; to volunteer to have it completed before they go to trial.  There is no presumtion of guilt involved, it will be a choice the accused makes.

Michael Earl Patton says:
21 Apr 2007  at  08:51 am | #

They have choices to make that will affect their lives.  The first is whether or not to drink and drive.  If they make the right choice here, there are no choices to make about how to navigate the criminal justice system.—from JFD, #27

It may do everyone good to read James Bogen’s article on what one should do if stopped for suspicion of DUI, which is in The Cincinnatus Standard archives.  There is definitely a question as to the reliability of the breathalizer equipment, especially if it has not been properly maintained.  Read the article for a fuller description of one’s rights, rights that everyone has, even JFD.

you're damn fools says:
21 Apr 2007  at  10:35 pm | #

“Failure to find another way, a constructive way, is beginning to sound more like a campaign not mission.”

That’s the only comment that I regret in everything I said.  You guys were able to get me to sink to your “attack mode” and naming someone the “villian”

The reality is - I’m not Pepper, I’m not Portune—I am not an insider.  I work on behalf of disadvantaged families every day of my life.  Among my awards for community service - not a single one is from ANY politician and none embrace me because I am independent, politically, and I call it like I see it - too often, to build any damn alliances.

The truth is, the status quo is hurting the families I try to serve everyday.  There will be continued incarceration of these people - the right wingers will make darn sure of it.  These people’s lives will always be held in the hands of some Uncle Tom unless we free them through programs and services - many need to be given in house because that’s the only way to make mentally ill persons, addicts and alcoholics dedicate the time necessary to get it right and get straight. 
Why do you think these people going to jail for jaywalking and pissing on the sidewalk keep coming back? They chose to live on the streets because they have no real choices even after they get dried out or medicated in the jail.  They NEED and deserve society’s continuing help and, yes, surveillance in order to be free of their demons - you want to keep them free enough to have no quality of life - I want them to HAVE lives beyond the street, beyond a needle, beyond a bottle and beyond poverty.
Ooohhh ... so bad, so bad --- but if you really think differently you have your head in the sand and have never worked with people who need a hand up, and another and another before they stand on their own.
The justice commission is the freaking greatest thing that could ever happen to counter the racist, elitest community and you guys are going to blow it—for us, for them and for society ---
MEP has obviously decided he is against the new jail - like so many - and you are simply towing the white republican line of jail ‘em and forget ‘em—you fools—these are people’s lives here, you’re damn fools!

says:
22 Apr 2007  at  07:37 am | #

Yes, these are people’s lives—which is precisely why (according to MEP’s article) they should be seen in the flesh, and not via a TV screen. 

Why should family visits be limited to a monitor?  Why not actually see the person?

You do realize that, if we can’t see what’s just out of the shot, we can’t know if the person is being pressured, or something.

So if such a concern is the “white Republican line,” well… then I guess I’m siding with a white Republican on this one.

Now, if you are about to say that the plan is not firm yet—and that we shouldn’t bash the plan because we don’t know if this will actually be in the plan—then please realize that you are supporting a plan and you don’t even know what it is.

Michael Earl Patton says:
22 Apr 2007  at  10:04 am | #

MEP has obviously decided he is against the new jail—from you’re damn fools, #31

I’ll repeat what I said in #14, above: “It comes down to how one conceives the idea of a range of punishments.  I think there should be a range from community-based treatment for people whose primary problem is substance abuse to long-term incarceration for those who have shown themselves to be dangerous to others.  Others hold that everyone, even jaywalkers, need to go to a high-security prison and only within that prison will they be sorted out as to what treatment, if any, they need.  The prison punishment itself would basically be the same for everyone, differing only by length of sentence.”

Nowhere have I ever said that I am automatically against any new jail proposal.  My problems with the proposals have been:
1) that the current situation with most of the prisoners just waiting for a court date because they cannot afford bail is not addressed,
2) that because #1 is not addressed and that situation is expected to worsen, the new jail has to be several hundreds of jail beds bigger than what we have now,
3) community-based treatment will be abolished,
4) where all the money is coming from (in the 2006 plan), or where it is all going (in the 2007 plan), is not given, and
5) most other aspects of criminal justice are ignored in order to concentrate on building the bigger jail, including re-entry, efficacy of treatment, and the juvenile system.

I know that there is a commission looking into some of these things.  Except, of course, #2 IS OFF-LIMITS.  So we know what this is about.  It is only about the concrete.

If there is anything to be salvaged from these efforts it MAYBE will be found in the justice commission’s reports.  But it may not be.  The problem of re-entry, for example, has been mentioned several times in The Cincinnati Beacon, specifically, that the Cincinnati Police are asking landlords NOT TO RENT to anyone with ANY prior drug conviction.  This includes possession of small amounts of marijuana.  As they told me, it is the criminal’s fault.  We should not to give them a second chance.  And if the landlord DOES decide to give the person a second chance, the police have made it clear that the LANDLORD is at increased risk of fines or jail.  This is what passes for solving the re-entry problem in Cincinnati—doing what one can to make certain that they do not stay here.

And this is just fine with the justice commission.  My hopes are not high.

Michael Earl Patton says:
22 Apr 2007  at  10:30 am | #

I can’t understand your oposition to a plan that gives an added option to those who can’t afford bail, and will probably be ordered to undergo treatment as part of their DUI sentence; to volunteer to have it completed before they go to trial.  There is no presumtion of guilt involved, it will be a choice the accused makes.—from JFD, #29

It is primarily because this was proposed instead of looking at the WHY so many people cannot afford bail and are just waiting for their court date.  It is also because they want to eliminate community-based treatment.

The Eighth Amendment reads in full, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” If we have thousands of people every year who cannot afford the bail we set, then we need to look at the bail requirements, especially for misdemeanor offenses.

I started this article on the subject of video arraignment and video visitation.  I will also add here that I think that a blanket prohibition (there are always special cases) of seeing family and friends in-person amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Changing ones plea at trial from, not guilty, to guilty is different than what you said.  You made no mention of a previous plea.

The word “arraignment” is, unfortunately, imprecise in common usage.  Two of my questions to Mr. Pepper were aimed at trying to find their usage of the term.  My research showed that where video arraignment is used it is not just in the initial appearance.  This initial appearance is also often called “arraignment.” The person about whom I spoke did not change his plea at trial.  If he had pled “not guilty” a trial date would have been set.

says:
23 Apr 2007  at  08:44 am | #

"The Eighth Amendment reads in full, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” If we have thousands of people every year who cannot afford the bail we set, then we need to look at the bail requirements, especially for misdemeanor offenses.” MEP34

I know you’ve espoused the “no money, no fine, no foul” defence before, and I’m still not buying into it.  If we were to go down your road we won’t need a jail because you want to keep all of the poor criminals out of jail.

says:
23 Apr 2007  at  10:41 pm | #

MEP’s issue with the excessive bails IS his best point in challenging the jail proposal - persons aren’t supposed to be held in jail because they can’t come up with the bail - which is supposed to be sufficiently high enough - to insure that the alleged offender appears for his next court date.

I believe that I found out that Hamilton County currently has 190,000 outstanding warrants / capias outstanding.  190,000.  That means we have alot of people who just will not show up to court - and might even suggest that bails need to be higher - depending on how you want to manipulate the numbers and causation. (Disclaimer:  this includes capias for persons who fail to pay traffic tickets and don’t show up for court)

Telling is that about 3,000 are - if I remember right - for violent offenders—now, that’s down right scary.

Here would be my suggestion:  offer continuing amnesty programs for a year in an effort to clean up the outstanding capias.  Educate the public (possibly even through letters sent to them directly) that, if they have not come to court and resolved their ticket due to financial constraints - that they should fill out the enclosed form (indigency), bring verification where available and the fines will be dropped in lieu of 1 day of community service.

One other thing we need to do is to FIX this problem with suspending people’s license - I believe it is the cause of sooo many court appearances, failures to appear, and traffic recidivism that ends up resulting in jail time.  This policy disproportionately affects the poor and blacks.

If the criminal justice commission does not answer the question regarding excessive bail and confinement until trial on an unbiased basis - then, I will vote against the jail program

says:
24 Apr 2007  at  08:37 am | #

I believe that I found out that Hamilton County currently has 190,000 outstanding warrants / capias outstanding.  190,000.—from damn fool, #36

I hope that you remember the number incorrectly.  An outstanding warrent or capias for 1 out of 5 people in Hamilton County is simply huge (assuming only a few are for people outside the county).

I do like your amnesty proposal.  Whatever the number, we should work at clearing these up.

One thing that I have noticed is that many times the judge will call the defendant’s name and they will be present.  Then the judge will ask for the officer and they will be absent.  So the judge will reschedule for a later date.

But if the defendant is absent for whatever reason, the judge will issue a capias automatically.  The judge never asks if the officer is there if the defendant is absent.  And I never have heard the judge say that the defendant had been there for the previous time (when the officer was absent), so let’s just reschedule.

I know a man who claims that he showed up for a traffic ticket 3 times and each time the officer was absent.  On the fourth time the judge threw the whole thing out.  He thinks that this was intentional on the officer’s part.  He thinks that he could have challenged the ticket in court and won so the officer deliberately did not show up, hoping that the defendant would not show up one of those times.  Then the officer would have tracked him down on the capias and arrested him.

damn fool says:
24 Apr 2007  at  11:40 pm | #

MEP - that is VERY interesting - cops not coming to court should be an automatic dismissal - people can’t afford to be running down to court and missing work , expecially if they are low wage earners - I ‘d love to see those stats. I believe that if a defendant misses their first court date and a capias is issued, that they can just go to a police station and “turn themselves in” and get recited for another court date if they have no other outsstanding criminal issues.  So they do get one extra chance to make it to court.

I’m pretty sure I’m remembering what the clerk of courts office told me regarding outstanding warrants/capias correctly—and it’s a huge probleme.

Did anyone catch the story about the clerks office fixing their own parking tickets - I didn’t even know you could do this; it says you can contest a parking ticket via a “mail” appearance before a magistrate!  What an INCREDIBLE idea!  I think they should do all traffic tickets this way, maybe even some misdemeanor offenses - like peeing in public.

I remember about 30 years ago, I was too poor to pay my ticket in the time allotted but when I got paid, I sent the original amount (not the doubled) with a note that said I just didn’t have the money at the time - they let it slide - I never heard about it again ------ at least, I hope they let it slide, geez, maybe I am one of those 190K outstanding capias lolol

MEP- do you send any of your ideas to the justice commission / n jones?  I think it would be well received and given good consideration?