SAMPLE OF BOOK
So, you're FED UP with the
"Criminal Justice" system too, huh?
KATHY L. RENBARGER
FIRST EDITION
COPYRIGHT 1994
KATHY L. RENBARGER
first printing (proposals) May 1994
first printing (full book) April 1996
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, (including, but not limited to
any electronic or mechanical method
including: photocopying, recording or by
any information storage and retrieval
system,) without the written permission of
the author. Under certain conditions this
permission will be granted. Contact the
author for details.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kathy Renbarger is a 42-year-old Okla. City resident who has worked in Oklahoma as a security officer and private investigator. She received basic and intermediate reserve police officer training in Texas; where she worked for three and a half years as a surety investigator, locating and apprehending bond jumpers. During that time, she did quite a lot of work closely related to undercover narcotics. She has also been a U.S. Parachute Association rated jumpmaster, which might seem irrelevant until you consider the degree of understanding of psychology involved in getting a student out the door of a flying airplane...
Many years ago, in her "younger, wilder days," she spent time with a street patrol group, in an area which had recently experienced a sudden and substantial influx of heroin and an associated crime increase. The police who routinely worked the area had grown frustrated by the blatant ineffectiveness of traditional methods. These officers, in effect, turned area enforcement over to this group; which also took over the responsibility for the trial, sentencing, and punishment of the offenders which they had apprehended -- utilizing corporal punishment. Although she now, over 20 years later, has a different attitude about "vigilante justice," she still recognizes the effectiveness this group had in significantly reducing the (previously skyrocketing) crime rate of this area.
Although many of the "Level One" ideas in this book originate out of experience acquired during this period, most have been greatly modified to reflect the very different circumstances involved in implementing a more generalized and socially acceptable system, the additional experience she has acquired, combined with the extensive input she has received through discussions with friends in law enforcement (and others) over the interceding years.
Ideas for all three levels stem from discussions with others who have been heavily involved, in various capacities, with law enforcement and who have actual, front line, street experience in dealing with people with criminal tendencies.
She welcomes input and suggestions from all members of the public, but, especially, from people who are involved in criminology, criminal justice, front-line law enforcement, and corrections.
Donations to assist with distribution to legislators, court personnel, etc. would be very gratefully accepted and accounted for.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There have been so many people who have helped make to this book possible, in so many different ways, I find it all but impossible to devise any equitable means for ranking their much appreciated contributions. So, I shall chicken out and fall back upon that tired, old standby of alphabetical order.
Very special thanks to the following people, without whom this book would probably have remained only an idea:
Robert G. Carpenter, attorney, OKC, Okla. Who very patiently
allowed me to pick his brain. By the way, if you ever need an
attorney, I'd highly recommend him.
Det. Bill Cook, Homicide investigator, O.K.C Police Dept., O.K.C.,
Okla. (Case 1)
Det. A.D. Fredrickson, Sex Crimes Unit, O.K.C Police Dept.,
O.K.C., Okla. (Case 1)
The staff of the Gaylord Center Domestic Violence hotline, who were
very helpful in putting together the third case, OKC, Okla.
Judy Gilley, my editor (She sure got a work-out!), OKC, Okla. (who
also took the photos at the jail)
Lindley Gray, admissions counselor, Schick-Schadel chemical
dependency treatment center, Seattle, Wash. (Ideas--cases 1 and 4,
content editing and lots of encouragement)
Kim Rooney, photogropher, Choctaw, Okla., equipment ("the room")
photos.
Maj. Virgil Nuenshwander, Okla. County Jail Admn., OKC, Ok. (tech-
nical advice and morale support)
All of the great folks at the Okla. County District Attorney's
office. (Any errors in "present system" are the result of literary
license -- not erroneous information from these great folks.)
Scott Rowland, Public Information, Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics,
O.K.C, Okla. (content editing-case 4)
All the great folks at the Okla. County Sheriff's Dept. and Jail,
O.K.C., Ok. (jail photos)
Naomi Siegel, Houston, Tx. (financial contributor, moral support,
secondary editing, and master copy.)
Sheriff J.D. Sharp, Oklahoma County. (jail photos)
Danny Smith, O.K.C., Ok., (for the initial use of his computer --
without which this book would DEFINITELY have remained just an
idea.)
Jan Turner, O.K.C., Ok., (financial contributor, morale support.)
Michael Wallach, O.K.C., Ok., (initial proofreading, content
advisor.)
George Young, director of "Third Phase" domestic violence program,
OKC, Ok. (content editing-case 3)
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(based on the full-page format)
FOREWORD------------------------------1 (in sample)
INTRODUCTION-------------------------9 (in sample)
SECTION ONE (PROPOSALS):
Human Rights Considerations-----13 (in sample)
Levels One and Two--------------17
Incarceration-------------------18
More Violent or
Serious Crimes---------------20
Executions and
Appeals of Execution---------22
Current Inmate Populations------24
Suggested Punishments-----------26
Offenses Which Should
Definitely be Transitioned---28
Corporal Corrections Centers----30
Other Alternative Sentences-----33
Victim Impact Statements--------35
Bonding-------------------------36
Perjury-------------------------38
Intimidation Of or Retaliation
Against a Witness or Victim--39
Juvenile Offenders--------------40
Preimplementation
Possibilities----------------41
SECTION TWO (QUESTIONS and ANSWERS)--47
SECTION THREE (CASES) (*)=case intro. in sample
CASE ONE----LEVEL THREE----------81 (*)
CASE TWO----D.U.I.--------------107 (*)
CASE THREE--VIOLATION of V.P.O./
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-----------127 (*)
CASE FOUR---DRUG SALES----------157 (*)
SECTION FOUR (SUPPLEMENTS)
Prison overcrowding supplement----265
Glossary--------------------------271
Initial legislation---------------273
1 FOREWORD
The system which is currently in place for dealing with our criminals is simply NOT WORKING. This is (any social issues aside) basically a two-part, four-faceted problem. The first part consists of the fact that we currently have two very polarized camps of thought -- one believing in rehabilitation, but not in punishment; and, another, which believes in punishment, but not in rehabilitation. Either of these camps addresses only one-half of the problem and will achieve only minimal results in significantly reducing crime and prison overcrowding. The second part of this problem lies in the fact that we are limited, at this time, to incarceration as the sole means of providing any truly meaningful consequences to criminal behavior. What happens when you incarcerate a non-hardened offender? You get back, far more often than not, a hardened criminal. But, what happens when this same individual is sentenced to (only) probation, or other so-called punishments? The message is conveyed that their actions were not really all that serious and can be repeated with very few consequences. Not a message which should be encouraged...
Currently, it is estimated that between 65 to 90 percent of criminal activities were committed either by someone under the influence of alcohol / other drugs or by a person with a significant history of substance abuse. Where are the funds for effective treatment programs? Currently they are being squandered on incarceration. Money alone is not the answer, though. The best treatment programs in the world will do nothing, unless the person has reached a bottom and has a very strong personal incentive to make the necessary changes. Unless we attack the crime problem on the fronts of early involvement in criminal activity, drugs, and alcohol abuse, no significant impact will ever be realized.
So! Where do we go from here? Is this really an unsolvable dilemma? Many people agree with me that it is not, and that the book which follows presents a workable solution.
But first, a brief forenote to those who might consider the solutions I offer to be barbaric, horrifying, brutal, or other such terms:
You've had your chance, and your methods just haven't worked. They have, in fact, resulted in one of the most brutal, barbaric, and horrifying periods of our country's history. You are to be commended for your dreams of a utopian society -- don't ever give up those dreams. Along the way, however, bear in mind that these dreams will not, in fact CAN NOT, be realized in a society where people are afraid to help one another, and in a society where people live incarcerated in their homes.
THE INSANITY MUST STOP!!!
We must take a long, hard, and impartial look at the possibility that we "threw the baby out with the bath water" when our country chose to solve the abuses occurring in areas such as the use of convict labor, juvenile incarceration, and the corporal punishment of criminals by doing away with these practices all together.
FOREWORD 2
Somewhere, along the way, we lost sight of the fact that the bill of rights was intended to protect the rights of non-criminals, as well as those of criminals. You might argue that protecting the rights of criminals protects the rights of us all; but, that is not proving to be the case.
Instead of "clamping down" only on the criminals, measures are being taken to "clamp down" on us all. The current proposals for crime control primarily emphasize measures which would only put us many steps closer to a police state such as: gun control laws directed toward all citizens, vast increases in police manpower, and a widely expanded prison system (at the taxpayers expense, I might add.) Our rights are currently being assaulted by both the criminals and our own government. Our crime problems provide an avenue of justification for those who would curtail the liberties which were the very foundation of this country.
On another note -- which is crueller to an individual? To use measures which are sufficiently frightening and harsh to constitute a true deterrence to a life of crime and to, thereby, provide that person with sufficient motivation to find alternatives, or to leave them to wasted lives of either crime or incarceration?
Unlike some advocates of "get tough on the criminals" theories, I do not oppose rehabilitative measures, nor do I advocate the building of more and more prisons, or the lengthening of prison sentences ad infinitum. In fact, I contend that (in most cases) prison sentences are currently far too long. My objections are based on both the cost to taxpayers and the proven ineffectiveness of incarceration. True, while inmates are in prison, they are somewhat hindered in the commission of most crimes; but, they are receiving an education in techniques for other criminal activities and for more efficient ways to avoid apprehension. When they are released, as almost all of them are, they know even more about crime, and less about living in our society.
It is currently costing taxpayers an average of $27,000 per year, per prisoner in this country. For this money, we have one of the highest recidivism rates in the world...
Why???
Because prison has all but ceased to be a real deterrent. Long ago prisons were very horrific places and were (most commonly) reserved for only those offenders whose crimes caused them to fall just short of being executed. Public support and sympathy were next to non-existent for this small population of hardened criminals. People were, on the average, afraid to spend time there and crime rates tended to be low. Granted, there were other factors involved; but, they do not invalidate the fact that prison conditions served as a deterrent.
Because of the lack of sentencing alternatives, combined with societal changes, more and more people were incarcerated. As this population grew larger, and became more representative of society as a whole, a spiral effect began which resulted in an improvement in prison conditions. This reduced its deterrent effect and resulted in more people swelling the prison populations. We now
3 FOREWORD
have a system which closely resembles a "banishment" into a prison/ criminal pseudo-society, complete with status and ranking. In many cases we have a system where the convict lives in better conditions "inside" than out, and often better than those of their victims.
My "crime plan" would do away with much of this. I concede it would require the serious re-evaluation of many recent court decisions and would require, for the most part, legislative action; but, the operative question is: do we just keep on repeating our present mistakes, expecting different results; or, do we learn from the mistakes we have made over the years, keep what works, remove and safeguard against the abuses, and discard that which is proving to be ineffective?
To some, who read the proposals in this book, I might seem harsh or intolerant. This assumption is inaccurate. I recognize the fact that, as humans, none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes and do things we will later regret. As we go through life, we learn from our experiences, in one way or another. In most cases, the mistakes we are minor, have little or no impact on the lives of others, and do not result in an entanglement with the legal system. When these mistakes are serious enough to conflict with the laws we make, the "experience" should impart the message that it is not in our best interest to repeat that action. The purpose of just law is two-fold: 1) to proscribe conduct which will (or is likely to) have a long-term negative effect on others or on society as a whole, and 2) the prevention of conduct which is often predecessory to such a serious degree of harm (but produces harm none-the-less.) It is rare that a person will, out of the blue, wake up one morning and decide to go on a rampage of murder, rape, or robbery; although, with our present system's ineffectiveness in deterring crime and its effectiveness in deterring self-defense, this is occurring more frequently. More often, serious crimes are preceded by lesser crimes, which gradually escalate. My attitudes are tinted from observing the impact which this escallation process has on the victims; but, this does not make me intolerant or overly harsh. Our present system lacks balance. While it needs to recognize that people are prone to mistakes and, therefore, should not have their lives all but destroyed over even moderately harmful breaches of the law, it must also demand accountability. Within our present system, these two concepts tend to be mutually exclusive. When accountability is reduced, we do a grave injustice, not only to society as a whole, but to the offender, as well. Like the wife of an alcoholic who protects and makes excuses for her husband, only to lose him to liver cancer -- we "enable" them to continue on their course unchecked.
Many of the "mistakes" which our society proscribes through law constitute "mistakes in judgement." We tend to judge an action based upon the perceived impact which it will have on others and that which it will have on ourselves -- with the latter being the stronger of the two. In most people, an impact on others carries with it an implied impact upon ourselves -- commonly known as "conscience." Although I believe that most people are basically good (even many of those who are thought of as "bad" by themselves or others) I also believe that the operative statement for all people is, "What's in it for me?" By this, I refer not only to
FOREWORD 4
monetary and other tangible rewards, but to such things as the good feelings we get from helping a stranger that we will never see again. Also included are intangibles such as the friendship, respect, or admiration of others. The other side of this coin is that we also balance the negative. We want to stop and give the fellow who is walking down the road, 20 miles from nowhere and carrying a gas can, a ride to the gas station -- but, "What if..." The same principle holds true in the instance of someone having an item we want. Most of us have enough of what psychologists call "internal controls" that we don't act on such a want any further than a legitimate inquiry as to whether the item might be for sale. If the owner says "no," we might go so far as to leave our phone number and a request for them to call us if they ever change their mind. So, what makes us different from the person who just comes by and steals it? Usually our experiences. The following story makes a good example of this.
Once, while in a convenience store, I observed a mother force her young son to return a candy bar, which she had discovered he had stolen. The boy was embarrassed and tearful over having been caught. The mother was apologizing profusely to the clerk, telling him that her son had never done anything like that before and, once she got him home, she was going to make CERTAIN that he NEVER did it again! Another woman in the store got belligerent with the mother over her "making such an issue over a little candy bar."
A few weeks later, I saw this second woman again -- in the course of locating her grown son to arrest him for jumping bond. I couldn't help wondering if I would have had paper on him if she had been more like the first mother. The child with the candy bar was much too young to understand the impact of shoplifting on profit / loss statements and on pricing policies which affect everyone. When he stole it, he only understood that he wanted the candy and now he had it. When his theft was discovered, he only understood that he did not have the candy and was now facing some consequences which he did NOT want. He was unable to comprehend the effect of loss for the store, but he was certainly able to comprehend his own losses.
True, that kid might grow up anxious, repressed, and all those other labels which have come into use to imply that having some self-control is somehow negative; but, it's also a pretty good bet that, overall, he'll turn out to be a reasonably happy, productive member of society, rather than being on the run from criminal charges.....
This incident is a good analogy to our present day system:
Most of us have an acquired sense of accountability that says, even if no one else ever found out -- WE would know. When this is not enough to overcome any of the rationalizations which we might come up with, there is the nagging hunch that we will get caught. This concern could vary between: "What would the: {owner/police/ courts} do to us?" Let's examine each of these, in the context of their value as a deterrent...
These days, it is often considered a criminal act to defend even yourself, much less your property. In most states, laws pertaining to self-defense include a "duty to retreat," if it is possible to do so at any point. People have all but abdicated and been stripped of their role as being their own first line of defense. So much for deterrent number one...
5 FOREWORD
Next, is the police: by and large they are excellent people who are trying very hard to do what they can with an overwhelming problem. Because of the ratio of criminals to officers, the chances of being caught by the police are low enough that this deterrent effect is severely reduced. The most commonly proposed solution to this is to drastically increase police manpower. But, in considering the suggestion that we hire more and more police we must also consider the questions: 1) "Just how much are we really willing to spend?" and 2) "Are we really willing to live in the kind of society which is based upon police being everywhere?" The potential for abuse is just too great, especially when it is viewed in the context of this degree of manpower enhancement necessitating a lowering of screening and training standards. But, what if we could bring down the crime rate with our existing law enforcement manpower? Would not every 10 percent decrease in crime also approximate a 10 percent increase in the manpower available to deal with the remaining crime ever more effectively? This would, also, address the aforementioned concerns. But, more on how to do that later.
For now, let's look at our remaining "line of defense" -- the courts: Everything I have said about the police, I could repeat regarding the people we have working in our court systems. Too often, due to breakdowns beyond their control, they lack the options which would really put the brakes on crime. Over the years, policies have been made which, while they were often well-meant (and often needed to some extent), either went too far, were much too generally applied, were based on erroneous data such as the studies of B.F. Skinner (in which he concluded punishment was not a deterrent to unwanted behavior), or were founded in very inaccurate, unrealistic, or utopian views of society. We are currently like a traveller who is trying to find his way with a number of maps -- all different and each map drawn by a so called "expert" who has never even visited the area and who has relied solely upon the descriptions of others.
Many judges have a very good grasp of the situation, especially those who take advantage of police "ride along programs," but others do not. When criminals are in courtrooms, they are often putting their best foot forward, if not running a total scam. Judges don't hear them laugh about how nothing is going to happen to them, they don't hear them refer to being incarcerated as "being on vacation," they don't hear them boast and brag about having "done time" in jail or prison, and using it as a status symbol.
To most criminals, the current consequences of being caught simply do not constitute a deterrent. Because our courts have been limited to a choice between inefficient and/or life disruptive punishments, it's not uncommon for nothing noteworthy to be done about harmful behavior until it is so serious that it justifies throwing the book at them. At that point, the offender is usually just warehoused with others who share a distorted attitude about society and the law. The most effective place to attack crime is in its earliest stages, when (for the most part) the person is still salvageable. When we lock people up for long periods of time, we do little but to place a temporary barrior between them and ourselves. Short of life without parole (at the approximate
FOREWORD 6
cost of $18,000 per year in Oklahoma), we will still have to deal with this person when they get out (usually more dangerous than before and even less equipped with the skills necessary to lawfully survive in the outside world than they were when they were first locked up.) Plus, there are other costs to society which are harder to document such as: welfare costs to support offender's children, lost tax revenue (because, the longer that person is incarcerated, the lower his or her marketability upon release), and nonfinancial impacts on the offender's family. Judges and prosecutors are keenly aware of all these factors and, hence, the current trends toward alternative sentences. I support the use of most of these. Unfortunately, as they are currently being utilized, these alternative sentences have far too little impact on the offender and virtually NO deterrent effect on the pre-offender. THEY know the overcrowded state of prison systems and all the reasons for not putting, especially, first-offenders (usually more like the first time they got caught or convicted) or so-called "non-violent" offenders in them, just as well as all the rest of us do. This has become a self-perpetuating and self-exacerbating problem... I have known people with numerous arrests and convictions (most of whom really do NOT need to be removed from society at the taxpayer's expense) who have repeatedly received: just probation, probation and community service, and/or fines. A large majority of these persons have failed to take these measures seriously. Probation fees and fines often have far more impact on family members (and sometimes the general public through theft) than on the offender. Community service is usually little more than a nuisance -- if it is completed at all... However, many of these people need incarceration far less than they need a significant attitude adjustment (at their OWN expense), combined with the incentive and the tools they need to not to re-encounter the source of that adjustment.
I, along with many others I've talked with over the years, argue that such an attitude adjustment could be achieved far more fairly, effectively and inexpensively through the reintroduction of corporal sentencing in this country. Heavy fines or incarceration affect people to widely differing degrees. To one person, being locked up for several years might mean little or nothing; while, to another, even a month in jail could mean loss of job, family and future. To a rich man a $500 fine could be merely pocket change; while to a poor one it could put his family out on the streets and onto welfare. Corporal punishments tend to affect people much more equitably. Though there is a wide variation in the manner in which people convey their perception of physical pain, beyond a rather low point, people basically feel pain in much the same manner. While one may shriek bloody murder over a sliced finger and another may stoically endure painful medical proceedures, when either smashes their thumb with a hammer, both will feel (essentially) the same sensation. Although the sociologists of the past few decades have come up with many theories which imply -- if not state -- that pain is somehow evil, most of these are predicated upon the presumption of excess and abuse. When these elements are removed, their theories have been well refuted.
7 FOREWORD
Many of the arguments against corporal punishments are rooted in the concept that it is somehow "wrong" to impose changes upon an individual. Philosophical rhetoric might be fine for philosophers, they can sit around and discuss their theories ad nauseum for all we care. In the real world, the bottom line should be, "What works?" What is the fairest, most cost-efficient, and effective solution for all who are involved?
Corporal punishment, in the context of my proposals, fulfills these criteria much better than our present system, or anything else which I have yet to hear proposed.
But, what about the argument that pain produces hostility and fear in the recipient and, thereby, produces an even more hostile and violent individual? What about those who try to contend that pain is not a deterrent to unwanted behaviors?
These theories have been popularly espoused by so-called experts with their own philosophical, financial, or tenure agendas to promote. All too often their research has been skewered with elements which have all but guaranteed the results for which they were searching. Among these elements, I include the blatant brutality and abuse of creatures with little or no ability to utilize reason to correlate their actions with the consequences. Too often the results have been achieved by building the tests to insure the desired results -- but the insuring factors are often downplayed when the reports are later presented.
I contend that a more down to earth, common sense approach is warranted:
Why do we not go around, knowingly, placing our hands onto hot stoves??? Why do we, in fact, generally take great care to make sure that a stove is NOT hot before we place our hand on it???
Because, the body and the mind work as a unit to protect itself and pain is a powerful deterrent against those acts which produce it. Although most people can go through life taking other people's word for the fact that touching a hot stove is something that they REALLY DO NOT want to do, some just have to try it for themselves (ONCE!!!) to make sure, and some really don't give it much thought until they accidentally do it. It then becomes in their own self-interest to pay attention. It's rare, to the point of being pathologic, for the person to (then) have a phobia of stoves, much less a hatred for them. They simply avoid the behavior which resulted in the burn. The ludicrousness of the popularly espoused theories opposing corporal punishment become apparent if you picture someone taking a sledgehammer to that stove because it burned him. For him to (then) go hit his neighbor with this sledgehammer would be even more warped. Bringing this analogy back to the issue of corporal punishment, the key is in establishing the mental relationship between one's own actions and the pain which occurs as a direct result of those actions. For this to be accomplished, it should always be in reasonable proportion to the crime.
Many of the earlier uses of corporal punishments WERE excessive and were often accompanied by what is commonly accepted as violence, thus allowing the offender to go into a "Fight Mode." In this mental state the effectiveness of any punishment is severely reduced, partially due to the differences in bio-chemical responses
FOREWORD 8
that exist between a basic, passive fear response versus a fight response, which produce higher concentrations of endorphin type chemicals, and partially due to attitudinal differences. The analogy which springs to mind is the difference between going to the dentist for a root canal, when you KNOW that novocain isn't very effective on you, as opposed to being in a fight with your adrenaline and endorphins both flowing "ninety to nothing." This passive fear response tends to heighten fear and pain perceptions; whereas, the fight response tends to dull them... Not only are one's perception of pain levels altered; but also, the psychological responses are significantly different. While we might have very violent feelings toward a person with whom we have either fought or been abused by and, while our dentists are seldom our favorite people, it is extremely rare for us to have hostile or violent feelings against our dentists. We simply do all we can to avoid having to visit them.
Fear is not a wholly negative emotion. When it is used to promote positive outcomes, it is often preferable to the alternatives... Some of my readers might take offenses at the following story, either due to my methods or to my comparison of criminals to my dogs, but I feel there is a valid point to be made so I will just have to risk these reactions.
I have three dogs, all of which are off leash trained. Early in their training, they each had the desire to cross streets without permission. Obviously, this was unacceptable to me -- I don't want them hit by cars... The solution which finally worked? Whenever one stepped off the curb without permission, (s)he would be caught, taken from the curb back into the street, and shocked in the flank with my stun gun. Although one required a second trip, the other two learned the first time. None of them are fearful of me; but, they absolutely do NOT step off of a curb without permission, regardless of the strength of the temptation, and, none of them have been hit by cars. Hopefully, most criminals are at least as intelligent and able to learn from their experiences as my dogs. If they aren't, they should be hospitalized, not incarcerated. All too often, we waste too much time making lame excuses for people, instead of placing expectations upon them. People, like dogs, will tend to either live up to, or down to, the expectations which are demanded of them. They will, also, do whatever they feel that they can get away with without significant consequences. It's time we began providing people with: expectations, incentives, and tools -- not excuses and dead-end futures.
9 INTRODUCTION
My proposals are structured as a three level system:
LEVEL ONE:
Targets:
1) All non-violent first and second offenders (with the exception
of very high dollar amount property crimes.)
2) Less violent (or less deliberately violent) first or second
offenders.
3) First and second offense drug and alcohol offenders.
Methods:
1) Corporal punishment.
2) Alternative sentencing.
3) Rehabilitation.
LEVEL TWO:
Targets:
1) Non-violent third (or beyond) offenders.
2) Less violent second offenders
3) Third (or beyond) drug and alcohol offenders
4) Non-capital violent offenders
Methods:
1) Corporal punishment.
2) Up to two years of multi-level incarceration.
3) Rehabilitation.
LEVEL THREE:
Targets:
1) Capital murder cases.
2) Recidivist, violent offenders.
Methods:
1) Execution by lethal injection (ideally, within one year of
conviction.)
This book concentrates in greater depth on Level One than the others for a number of reasons. In any effective solution to the crime problem, this is the target group where the greatest impact can be made. It would involve the least legislative action, since it could be incorporated as a part of an agreed upon plea bargain,
INTRODUCTION 10
through the use of waivers. It is the level where I have the greater expertise, and where available expertise is in the shortest supply. And, it generated the most interest among the people with whom I discussed plans for this book. The greater emphasis on this level is NOT intended to minimize, in any way, the need for the implementation of the recommendations which are pertinent to the other two levels. As a system, it would be the most effective as a package deal; but, I realize that legislative and court action takes time. Given our present state of affairs, we should press for positive, constructive changes where we can get them the most expeditiously; then, continue to work for the rest.
Too often, people like to complain; but, they are unwilling to invest the effort into coming up with solutions. When confronted, they lament, "What can I do? I'm no expert, I haven't spent years in college, I don't have a wall full of degrees." Still others don't want to listen to anyone who doesn't have alphabet soup following their name. This brings to mind the old story about the world-renowned brain surgeon who has a flat tire on a section of road which runs past an insane asylum. He is late for emergency surgery and a flat is the last thing he needs at the moment. He gets out, hurriedly changes the tire, then discovers that his lug nuts are nowhere to be found. As he franticly searches the area, including the grass along the roadside, an inmate of the asylum comes to the fence and tries to tell him, "No big deal... Just put your other lug nuts on..." The surgeon grows increasingly irritated by this "nut" who is trying to tell him he doesn't have a problem. "I don't HAVE any other lug nuts! Don't you have a basket you need to be weaving, or something?"
The patient says, "No need to get nasty, I'm just trying to tell you how to fix your car. I was just trying to be helpful."
The surgeon replies with, "I'm a world famous brain surgeon! What can YOU, a mental inferior, tell me which I wouldn't have already thought of? If you really want to be helpful, go inside, have someone call me a wrecker, and don't bother me any further!"
The patient remains undaunted, insisting that he has a simple solution which would get the doctor on the road much more quickly.
In exasperation, and hoping to be rid of this annoying fellow, he finally says, "All right! How would YOU fix the car?"
"Well, Doc... Why don't you just take one lug nut off of each of your other three wheels, and put them on the fourth?"
The red-faced doctor does as he had suggested and races to the hospital, arriving just barely in time to save his patient.
The moral to this little story is, sometimes a person can have all the degrees, all the intelligence and all the credentials; but, still not see solutions which are right in front of his face. Also, had the surgeon not listened, but waited for the tow truck, his patient may well have died... Are we to allow arrogance to cost us many more lives?
Instead of complaining, "Why doesn't somebody DO something?!?" remember that "sonebody" includes yourself...
11 INTRODUCTION
If you feel that this book presents a workable plan, send your legislators copies of this book (also available from the author on computer disk for a nominal charge), or write to them with your opinions. If you have other ideas and solutions, take the time and effort to work out the details and to present them. Get active and form grass-roots movements. Our country is based upon the precept of "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Well, guess what, dear reader...
THAT'S YOU!!!
13 PROPOSALS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSIDERATIONS
What if our government issued edicts which decreed that we were not allowed to go out at night (even if it WAS only in certain areas -- but, it isn't) and enacted penalties for doing so which included bodily injury, rape, devastating fines, or even death? What if legislation was passed which allowed your property to be taken arbitrarily? What if it were decreed that every year the number of people who are killed by drunk drivers were, instead, rounded up and summarily executed; while the number of people now maimed by drunk drivers would be severely maimed for the "crime" of driving? What if a tax were imposed to supply drug addicts with their drugs of choice, possibly even through the use of a random drawing, resulting in everything of value being taken from you? What if they passed laws which required you to allow anyone to do virtually anything they wanted to you, and made it illegal for you to take any effective steps to defend yourself?
One would think that groups such as the A.C.L.U. and Amnesty International would be at the forefront of decrying these blatant human rights violations!!! SO WHERE ARE THEY? Where would our Supreme Court be in fighting to overturn these laws? SO WHERE ARE THEY? Well, guess what, folks? That's pretty much the current state of affairs. Because of legal revisions and because of the breakdown of our criminal justice system, this is virtually what has happened. It matters very little in the crime victim's mind that the perpetrator was not on the government's payroll, although, in the case of criminals on welfare--some are. The human rights of that victim have been no less violated. Although the processes are different; and, although this was not the intent of the government when laws and court decisions (which made criminal activity safer and more attractive) were made, the end result has been a weakening of the rights of the victim and general public to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
I, in no way, advocate the weakening of the systems which are in place to protect the innocent from false conviction and I am in no way opposed to rehabilitation. I do not oppose working to solve what many call "the root causes of crime" such as poverty, abuse, educational deficits, joblessness, etc. I AM opposed to these factors being considered JUSTIFICATIONS for crime. I AM opposed to a 'justice system' which is laughed at by the criminals, which provides no real deterrence and, thereby, violates -- on a daily basis -- the human rights of us all.
Building more jails and locking people up for longer and longer periods of time has not proven effective, especially when these facilities are increasingly becoming simply mini-societies to which one can move. The criminals actually, in some instances, have it better than they had it "on the outside" and quite often better than their victims.
There is much that is praiseworthy about our court system and I believe that all reasonable due process should be maintained;
PROPOSALS 14
but, there is also a lot we could learn from other countries and societies which have much lower crime rates than our own -- if only we (c)would just become less egotistical and more open minded--and less squeamish.
I believe it's time to seriously re-evaluate the direction we have travelled in recent history, in dealing with crime, and admit that we have taken a few wrong turns along the way. Hopefully, we won't find that we've landed ourselves into the position of, "We can't get there from here."
We need to accept the fact that, while many offenders are rehabilitatible, some simply are NOT; and, given a limited budget for rehabilitation, it is unfair--not only to society, but also to those persons who CAN be rehabilitated, to spread these resources too thinly. Money now being spent on long term incarceration could be much better spent in getting people OUT of the system and helping them to become active, productive members of our society.
For the unrehabilitatable, there should be established a point system whereby all violent crimes are assigned a point value in accordance with their severity. Once the individual has accumulated an established number of points, they would be executed by lethal injection. All appeals should be limited solely to issues of innocence or guilt. Rather than excluding evidence or dismissing charges because of improperly obtained evidence, there should, instead, be severe penalties established against law enforcement personnel who commit abuses, possibly of a corporal nature. It would not, however, absolve the original crime. Human rights activists might object to many of my suggestions, but our current state of affairs has our criminal justice system so overloaded that it is producing human rights violations far more serious than anything I am proposing could EVER become. At present, many of these abuses occur as a result of necessary default, rather than by design and, since "It can't be helped," are somehow considered to be excusable. As examples: Where does it fall within a human rights context for a person to sit in jail for an extended period of time because of an inability to make bond and because of an overloaded court system, especially if they are innocent? I would further propose that, in instances of acquittal or dismissal of charges, that the amount that one pays to the bondsman should be reimbursed, by the jurisdiction, from a fund created from bond forfeitures. Although this amount may seem negligible to someone who is making good money, someone who is just getting by can find the loss of even this amount to be financially devastating. Where does it fall, within a human rights context, for a person to be raped or beaten by other inmates in jail--a not uncommon occurrence which would be virtually nonexistent under the system I propose.
If one steps back and takes a hard look at our present system, in the context of innocent until proven guilty, they will have to ask, "What's wrong with this picture!?" When faced with the dilemma of: If being held in jail is punishment--why are people held there prior to conviction, and without any remuneration if acquitted? If it is not punishment--why even bother sentencing people to it??? I believe the facilities for pre-trial detention should be
15 PROPOSALS
considerably different than those used for post-conviction incarceration. If a person is found to be innocent, then (s)he should be fairly compensated for any time spent spent in jail. "But," you might say, "the police, the D.A.'s office and the court systems are so overburdened that mistakes are bound to be made, with crime on the increase, that would be just too cost prohibitive." True!... And, if nothing is done about the crime rate -- IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE. I use this as only one of many examples of how our current state of affairs needs changing in the interest of equitability to everyone and how our current problems make changes cost prohibitive without changes in our present methodology. Like the compulsive over spender, we are facing bankruptcy. Like an overspender, we can go off in never ending searches for more money (and the taxpayers are rapidly getting FED UP with this) or we can "cut up our credit cards" and drastically change the way that we do business. We will not find an equitable solution for ANYONE until we drastically reduce our crime rate. To do so, we have to discourage people from committing crimes by doing far more than saying, "Please don't do that," and by doing far more than administering a light slap on the wrist when they laugh in our faces. We must have the finances available to help people get back on the right track: money which is currently being WASTED, by using it to warehouse people.
Not only is an overloaded court system a violation of the rights of society as a whole, but also of the rights of every person caught up in that system. While this holds ESPECIALLY true for the innocent, it is ALSO true for the guilty. People are human and, as such, are subject to making mistakes -- it would actually be kinder to deal with them effectively and then help them to get their lives on track than is our present system. Let me assure you, a life spent in a criminal environment "ain't no picnic" and those who argue that we violate their rights when we seek to change them may have a wall full of degrees, but still have NO idea of what they are talking about. Maybe, if they would come down out of the "Hallowed Halls of Knowledge" and spend some time on the front lines of the streets, they might get a REAL education and more of us would be willing to give them credibility. In the meantime, they need to be willing to listen to those who have THAT education.
If you want something constructive to protest, then spend your time protesting the shipping of so many of our much needed jobs overseas. I do not consider job shortages to be valid justifi- cations for criminal activities, I do recognize it as a contrib- utory factor in some instances. When this happens, however, other people and business in a crime infested area move out -- further declining a neighborhood or area in an ever downward spiral. If you are truly an advocate of human rights, your time and efforts would be much better spent on effective crime reduction, restoring blighted neighborhoods, and bringing back jobs at all skill levels. "Crime control" is currently being used as a justification for numerous encroachments upon the rights of us all. My proposals represent a return in the direction that our founders intended and are directed only toward post-conviction areas, while many of the
PROPOSALS 16
ideas which are being currently being proposed by others (and in some instances are being enacted) have the opposite effect of diminishing the principles of human rights and liberties for which this country was intended to stand.
SECTION THREE
CASES
All characters contained in these cases are fictitious. Any resemblance to any actual person(s), living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Clarification: The following cases are presented in an alternate ending format. Each case presents ONE incident, with two very different outcomes: one that could be very likely to occur under our presentsystem, and another which would be very ikely under this proposed system. They do NOT represent seperate or repeated criminalincidences and are NOT consecutive.
WARNING: Due to the occasionally graphic content of the material which follows, reader discretion is advised.
The following are the case layouts only (as teasers); to find out what happens under the "present and proposed ststems" you'll have to get the book... Well, the idea IS to sell books...
125 CASE 1
CASE NUMBER ONE
LEVEL THREE
"Fred," a 38-year-old career criminal, has an extensive history of criminal activity which goes back to the age of 13, when he first became involved in petty thefts and shoplifting. His parents were inconsistent in their responses. In the beginning, his behavior was attributed to "kids will be kids..." and dismissed with minor reprimands. After they were contacted by the police the sixth time, when Fred had burglarized a local sporting goods store, they suddenly changed their tactics... His father was intoxicated when Fred's mother brought him home from the detention center and he beat him badly enough that Fred was kept out of school for a week. The next time, when Fred broke into a garage to steal some tools; he was caught by the owner, a neighbor, who called Fred's parents rather than the police. This time,he was yelled at, berated, and "grounded" for two months. The next night, after his parents had gone to sleep, Fred snuck out of a window and broke into another neighbor's house, who was out of town on vacation, where he stole all the valuables he could carry, then he ransacked and vandalized the house. He hid "the loot,"snuck back into his house, and was sound asleep when his parents awoke.
It was four months before he was caught for anything else, in spite of the fact that these late-night excursions had continued throughout both the two month grounding and the intervening time period. This time, he was arrested when a police officer returned from working a domestic violence case, at a nearby apartment complex, to find Fred busily vandalizing his patrol car. For this crime, sentenced to an indeterminate sentence in "reform school."
CASE 1 126
At the age of 15, during his first month in this reform school, he was accosted in the shower area, held down, and gang raped by a group of three slightly older boys. This was the beginning of an ongoing, and steadily escalating cycle of child victimization; as he, in turn, began to prey upon the even younger boys.
Although he had begun his career with minor and, mostly, property crimes; over the past 25 years, this criminal activity has slowly, but very steadily, escalated -- now encompassing many crimes of violence.
Fred has been in and out of prisons and jails throughout his adult life, for a wide variety of crimes, but has never been caught for any of his sex crimes. Because of prison overcrowding and "cap" laws, he is always returned to the streets.
While incarcerated, he usually plays the role of another inmate's "wife." When he is on the outside, he preys upon young boys.
His most recent conviction has been for strong armed robbery.
171 CASE 2
CASE TWO
D.U.I.
[POSTED -- "PARTYING???" LINK]
"Earl Jansen" is a 44-year-old business executive who occasionally hits the bars with clients and colleagues.
Heading home from one of these drinking excursions, Highway Patrol troopers observe him weaving in and out of his lane and, in general, driving erratically. Preparing to pull him over, the troopers video tape Earl's erratic driving with a unit mounted recorder.
Upon stopping him, the troopers detect a strong odor resembling that of an alcoholic beverage. They subsequently give him a field sobriety test (also video taped), which he fails miserably. They, then, administer an electronically calibrated breathalizer test. The calibrations had been recently verified and the trooper administering the test is certified and experienced in the use of this machine. The results of this test indicate that Earl has a blood alcohol content (B.A.C) of .19. Based upon this evidence, he is arrested for Driving Under the Influence (D.U.I). He is transported and booked into the local jail.
Upon completion of a complete criminal history (CCH), it is confirmed that he has no prior arrest history. Earl spends the night in jail. The next morning, he arranges bond and is released pending trial.
203 CASE 3
CASE THREE
VIOLATION OF V.P.O
.
"Sam Adams," is a very young looking, 32 year old, part-time construction worker. He was released from prison four months ago in another state, after serving a five year term for seriously injuring (with a pool cue) a man in a bar fight. Because of constant fighting and discipline problems, he served his entire term without parole. Although he has a long history of alcohol abuse, he has never received any treatment.
Three months ago, he moved here to renew a relationship with Cindy, who had been his live-in girlfriend prior to his being sent to prison.
His previous relationship with Cindy ha been stormy and sometimes abusive; therefore, she had left him eight days prior to his arrest, and had subsequently moved to this state. She was skeptical of taking him back; but, she was "on the rebound" from the recent break-up of a four year relationship with another man and Sam had convinced her that, after five years in prison, he was "a changed man."
The first couple of weeks were like a fantasy for Cindy -- with Sam showering her with attention, flowers, and gifts. But, it doesn't take Sam long to return to his old patterns of emotional abuse, jealousy, control, attempting to isolating her from her friends, and blaming her for everything that happens. Soon after, the physical abuse resumes. After several brief break-ups, Cindy finally began to wise up (after getting in touch with a domestic violence hotline), had her locks changed, packed his belongings, stacked them outside the door, and obtained a V.P.O (Victims Protective Order) against Sam.
CASE 3 204
At the time of this arrest, Sam was very intoxicated and was attempting to kick in the door of Cindy's apartment. He was screaming that he knew she was hiding another man in her apartment and loudly threatening, among other things, to tear her head off and to commit numerous obscene acts with it.
When the police arrived, the 5' 11", 235 pound, Sam was extremely belligerent and told the officers that this was none of their @!*$ business, that this was between Cindy and himself (in MUCH more colorful terms!)
In the course of his arrest, Sam swung on one of the officers and put up quite a fight while trying to prevent them from handcuffing him.
He is charged with: Violation of a V.P.O, Public Intoxication, Disorderly Conduct, and Resisting Arrest. While he's in jail, Sam tries numerous times to contact Cindy in an attempt to persuade her to post his bond -- but she steadfastly refuses to accept his phone calls. Subsequently, he remains in jail and is appointed a public defender (Scott.)
257 CASE 4
CASE FOUR
DRUG SALES
"Terry Blevins," a 23-year-old white male, has been l iving on the streets since he was 16. As a juvenile, he spent time in a variety of youth facilities and shelters; but, he had always taken off at the first opportunity. He has been involved with an assortment of drugs since the age of 15. Since turning 18, he has been arrested for a variety of misdemeanors and served 19 months, in another state, for a burglary.
Although he has committed countless other crimes, both misdemeanors and felonies, he has never been convicted for them.
His most recent arrest, was for the sale of crack cocaine to an undercover officer. He's been selling drugs to support his own drug use since shortly after his release from prison 23 months ago. In addition to the two rocks which the officer purchased, Terry had five more on him. The total weight of the drugs was 4.9 grams. At 6' 3" and 170 pounds, Terry was quite a handful, when he tried to fight off the arresting officers and tried to swallow the remaining drugs.
Shortly after his arrest, Terry started showing signs of crack cocaine withdrawal.
PARTYING???
If you're going to be driving to a party
read this before you go! ....................................................
Click here to e-mail Kathy Renbarger at fedup@flash.net e-mail now
RETURN TO INDEX PAGE ABOUT THE BOOK FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHAT CAN I DO??? VIEW PROPOSED INITIAL LEGISLATION CENTERS, PUNISHMENTS, ETC. HONOR SYSTEM BASED DOWNLOADING and READING OPEN LETTER RESPONDING TO SOME COMMON OBJECTIONS INFORMATION FOR ATTORNIES AND JUDGES PLEASE SIGN MY GUEST BOOK and LEAVE YOUR OPINION NEWSLETTER BACK ISSUES TRAINING APPLICATION EXTERNAL LINKS CHARGED WITH A CRIME???
