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:
After carefully reviewing this plan, I find no connection between excusing criminal behavior and saving money. In fact, I think that excusing criminal behavior and providing amnesty to those that have thumbed their nose at the justice system for 7 years may have the opposite impact. I think it may have the effect of promoting criminal behavior because people can escape prosecution by simply avoiding the courts for 7 years.
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:
If this is true why not track down on these offenders right now and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Why allow seven years to pass without aggressive pursuit of these offenders? Whether “soft” or “tough” on crime, these cases nonetheless, end up dismissed at trail, and at the Taxpayers’ expense.
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.
Photo courtesy of