Any time a person can serve jail time because of charges, the person is advised to get an attorney. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them. According to and article in the Virginia-Pilot:
No jail time. No attorneys. No need for the state to spend its scarce dollars.
At least, that was the thinking of some Virginia prosecutors who proposed a novel way to save money: They won’t seek jail time for misdemeanor charges and the judge won’t have to appoint a state-paid attorney to represent indigent defendants.
Supporters of HB1394 suggest that it will save Virginia several million dollars, although how much is unclear.
“I haven’t seen anything like this,” said Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney Harvey Bryant, a supporter of the measure. “The funding situation is so serious that we’ll look for cases where we’ll say, ‘We’re not seeking jail time.’ ”
Commonwealth’s attorneys floated this idea as a way to prevent deeper cuts into their budgets and staff. Instead of laying off prosecutors, the state would pay less for court-appointed attorneys.
So is this a good way to save the Commonwealth of Virginia millions? Should we skip the jail time for drug users, drunk drivers and wife beaters and just fine them out the ying yang?
Further support of the bill is explained:
A supporter of the bill, Springfield Republican Del. David Albo, said that in many cases, people convicted of misdemeanors, such as first-offense marijuana possession or simple assault, aren’t sentenced to jail anyway. Prosecutors already have the authority to waive jail – this bill makes sure they do so when possible, he said.
Not everyone is on board with this bill, including the governor who also felt there could be unintended consequences for those who relied on court appointed lawyers to prove their innocence.
This parallels the illegal immigration/Amnesty debate. Should we have laws and punishments, or should we abrogate them for the sake of convenience?
I like it! America locks up too many people for trivial crimes. Fine ’em’ and let them go. Without jail time, they will probably be able to keep their jobs, pay taxes, seek treatment, and contribute to society.
Maybe a good compromise would be to take another look at what should be jail time.
For example, maybe on a first DUI, the person, if convicted could pay a steeper fine and have to install one of those breathalizer things on the car and keep it there for 5 years. Most of the time there would be no jail time anyway. Plus that would stop drunk driving better than a short jail sentence.
Jails are overcrowded. Fewer court appointed lawyers, and throw in steeper fines. Virginia could be a real trail blazer.
I think I have the same concerns as RB. It can be a slippery slope and sooner or later we are going to have a tragedy caused by someone who should have and would have otherwise beeen in lock-up. That said, I am also convinced that lock-up is also a school for criminality and networking. Technology needs to be in play here – with confinement at home – at their own expense. Get a Company to share in the savings to provide the tracking technology and monitor movement and then follow-up with volunteer oversight. Its not a privacy issue when you surrender your rights in return for avoiding prosecution that could otherwise result in longer hard -time.
“So is this a good way to save the Commonwealth of Virginia millions? Should we skip the jail time for drug users, drunk drivers and wife beaters and just fine them out the ying yang?”
Your kidding right? If someone needed a court appointed attorney what in the world makes you think that they can or will pay ‘out the ying yang’ in fines? Makes no sense at all…
yeah, you can’t afford an attorney so instead of having one and possibly jail time here are a ton of fines you can’t afford to pay any way. Oh, you crack me up some times… 🙂
Well that’s where the government can get involved, to help pay the fines. Perhaps apply some stimulus money.
Off topic but just wanted to share the very first ‘Coffee Party’ commercial with everyone: http://www.youtube.com/user/Optoons#p/u/2/DBOJrlKyfIE
IF someone has been charged with a crime that carries potential jail time, then they MUST be asked if they can afford a lawyer. If they say NO then one MUST be appointed for them. Hello, who do you think pays for this now?
When people get fined now, who pays?
You are aware, Hello, that the court system can and will come after people for outstanding fines. They can do all sorts of nasty things like track you down, have the state pull money out of your bank, snag your tax refunds, pull your license from DMV.
Many people have suspended jail sentences now or are not sentenced to jail.
The savings will be that the state will not have to provide court appointed lawyers for these people.
When all else fails, read the article.
I disagree with MH’s reasoning but agree with her conclusion – the presence of an attorney to defend an accused and protect his rights is one of those things that seperates us from 3rd world countries (like Europe and any country ending with -stan).
Now, the state does have a case in saying that if a person’s liberty is not in jeaopardy (jail time) then a lawyer doesn’t have to be appointed – and they’re right in that the letter of the law is on their side – but we have to be VERY careful about doing this to avoid as many unintended consequnces as possible. I don’t get the impression such safety mechanisms have been thought out yet.
I agree with Blackstone here – It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.
Revise the bill, make it clear how the interests of the poor will be protected (in the ability to seek councel if needed [what’s/how’s, etc]) and resubmit next year.
Marin, it isn’t MY reasoning.
I am actually rather neutral as far as emotional investment.
I know nothing about the law.
Might be a good project for our AG to sink his teeth into. Keep him busy with real stuff.
Know some local governments, paying a big per diem for each prisoner,
have tossed around the idea of making bail for non-violent small time
offenders to save taxpayer money.
For Certain Crimes you may want to consider alternatives to expensive “jail-time” like electronic ankle bracelets so they could continue to work , shop , etc and you could make rules about where they were allowed to go and your AG doesn’t seem to be busy so he could devote some time to perfect the system.
Juturna, I think his teeth might be elsewhere.
Kulture Ken is saddling up that trusty white steed as we speak…and preparing to ride off to do battle against the powers of corruption and sin.
It seems to me there are criminal matters that need our attention, especially as they relate to the budget but instead, he choses to be the culture warrior.
You can buy a lot of ankle bracelets for what 30 days and 3 squares a day gets you.
Kulture Ken needs to work on something that saves us money, I agree, Bear. Grrrrrrrr
Ankle bracelets are already being used, but they must be monitored 24-7
and upkeep isn’t cheap nor is the personnel to monitor the program.
What do they do? Howl if you go somewhere you aren’t supposed to?
I’m ok with the idea of human lojack for persons waiting trial or those that have been found guilty but are not a danger to society and are best served by being back in society and working.
I’m not sure why the AG would be involved with those programs as they’re run at the County level (usually by the Sheriff) and funded or not by the County government. The resistance is usually that voters/taxpayers want bad people in jail and not on the streets and every dollar you spend on a prisoner is one you take away from social services, education, et al.
And, you have to be willing to live with the political fallout in case one of those guys does something wrong while on electronic arrest. A DUI offender waiting for trial that drinks again and plows into a school bus would make defending the program rough – even if the program is ‘good’ but not for the illegal actions of one person.
It may be that we’ll be forced to adopt a ‘catch and release’ program. We caught you doing the crime but it’ll cost more to convict you than we’re willing to spend so we’ll release you but ‘update your file’.
At the county level – what’s the priority? The funding model is unsustainable and the spending model is way out of whack. Until the BOCS can find balance in the force we’re going to have to just slog through it.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out (the house bill). Maybe one day we’ll have a society like ‘The Running Man (film)” where people wear explosive collars that detonate if they go past a certain boundary. Much cheaper than building fences and walls and such. 😉
@Al
I would say add hefty community service, parole and mandatory re-hab/counseling.
Question – if they have no money for an attorney, what are the odds that they would have money in the bank or even file their taxes to get money back?
Community service, parole and rehab/counseling all take up funding. We can’t even keep track of who is on parole and who has/hasn’t done their community service and rehab –
The laws are all state laws, not local laws. No jail time would have to be decided state-wide, not locally.
They would also have to decide which crimes were not jailable offenses. That also might hinge on how many previous offenses. Obviously a repeat DUI would be viewed differently than a first DUI.
Community service can help reduce costs. For example, those guys on the side of the roads are not costing us anything other than supervision (which would have to be given to any roadside crew). We get the trash picked up, they do something good and we save money.
If the criminal has insurance, s/he can use that for counseling. Some criminals do actually have jobs. If not, there are centers that charge on a sliding scale.
Perhaps if we weren’t spending so much money on jailing people, we would have some left over to fix the parole problems.
One reason these issues continue to be issues is that people say “blah, blah, blah, that won’t work, this won’t work, etc.” How do we know it won’t work if we never try?
HH, they get paid usually. Have you priced attorneys? There have been times when I know I couldn’t afford an attorney without borrowing the money but I have always filed taxes. This idea that filing taxes is an option is just something I cannot accept.
The courts also set up payments with people who are fined.
You are in error. The Commonwealth’s Attorney can simply decline to prosecute any case he has. He may think that it’s not winable, the crime and punishment don’t fit, or any other variety of circumstances – so that part hasn’t changed. From a pragmatic standpoint do I as a CA spend 10 man-hours to get a graffiti artist a 30 day suspended sentence or do I spend those 10 hours working a gang task force case. I’m an elected CA — which case is a higher priority to the voters?
Regardless of it being a State or local law the CA can decline to nolle prosequi whatever he wants.
And of course, society has the final say if at a jury trial the jury nullifies the State’s case (but that’s for another thread).
The Sheriff’s road crews are something inmates WANT to get into. They only take the prisoners they know won’t run, won’t be a threat to the public, and are well behaved in jail. You might think labor (especially in the Virginian heat) is something to be avoided but being out and doing somethign beats being locked up every day. I’m not sure what benefit it would be to stack these crews with persons that could just as easily be out doing REAL work and being a benefit to society.
Anyways, I’m still not sure why the AG would be involved in this as it’s a county issue. Hmm. Quick thought. We *could* ask the Sheriff if convict labor could be used to maintain the landscapes of school property during the weekends to cut down on PWCS maintenance costs… I wonder if that’s possible.
@marinm
Marin, you don’t think picking up trash is real work that benefits society? I do. Okay, so even if we disagree, what about having these folks work at a food pantry (which happens quite often) or help pave roads or clean up fallen trees? Seems there should be a way to turn a negative into a positive here.
Nope, you mistook what I said. While they’re in custody of our Sheriff they earn no money, generate no taxes and consume county resources. If they were in an electronic monitoring program they could go to work doing whatever job they normally do, earn pay, consume resources from our retail establishments, pay taxes, etc.
It’s in society’s best interest to have people out of jail and being productive citizens and consumers.
I appologize if I didn’t write that well.
I would most certainly want someone employed, making a living and off the government dole rather than suckling on the teet of government.
Marin, the state would have to decide if a misdemeanor carried no jail time. That has nothing to do with whether a CA decided to prosecute or not.
Are you trying to tell me that a CA can determine whether or not a drunk driver goes to jail? If the CA prosecutes the case as DUI and that person is convicted, he or she could go to jail. The conviction and sentencing is not left up to the CA. They can only recommend.
You are going to have to bring in something more than just you telling me I am in error to convince me.
@marinm
Okay but what if they could do community service AND keep their jobs? Community service offers flex hours : )
Devil’s advocate:
I am a criminal (let’s say first time DUI or too many traffic tickets or drunk in public – not a violent offender). I’m ordered, by the court, to go to counseling. I have insurance and a job, but I feel that because the court is ordering me to go to counseling, they should have to pay for it. I hire an attorney who successfully argues the case and now the courts have to pay for my counseling.
Flip of this: I’m a criminal (same as above), but I don’t have a job. I don’t have insurance and I don’t qualify for medicaid/medicare or SSI. I’m ordered to go to rehab. I don’t have money to pay on a sliding scale. What now? Is the option that if I don’t do as ordered, I go to jail? So don’t I still end up in jail either way?
I didn’t make myself clear about taxes. I know that the state can withhold payment from taxes, but what if I don’t file or I actually owe taxes instead of getting a refund? And my pay isn’t so great – I’m pulling 40 hours a week at a convenience store making minimum wage. What are the odds that I’ll get any money to live off of?
Community service – if only people actually did it. We’ve tried community service (same with parole). Check the stats for repeat offenders to see if parole really did the trick. Same thing with community service. Working at a food pantry is heaven compared to spending a night (or a few nights) in jail. So my choices are:
(a) Drive drunk, possibly get a “hefty” amount of community service and keep my license/not go to jail or
(b) Drive drunk and get my a$$ thrown in the drunk tank for the night
If people know that community service is the only thing on the table, are we encouraging more crime? If I know that the most I can be given is 100 hours working community service (outside, in a warm, safe place rather than in jail) and go to counseling, is that a strong enough deterrent?
Wow, my posts are getting as long as Michael’s were. Hopefully they make more sense than his did 😉
Court orders usually involve AA which is free.
Not sure about other types of rehabilitiation. I think if the court orders it, they pay for it.
So have the social ills of society been decided yet? Sorry have been busy today.
No, we needed you here, Rez. Good birthday?
I can’t say I disagree with this idea. The booger is….which crimes do we let slide? Actually, now that I think about it….we already pretend there are no immigration laws, so what does it matter, really?
Yes, a good birthday. Thanks
I think we need to ask what misdemeanors don’t usually draw jail time and then evaluate what are the advantages to n ot putting them in jail. All people convicted aren’t doing jail time anyway. Because they CAN go to jail, the state has to pay for the court appointed lawyer.
Rez, glad you had a good one. How was the wine?
Sorry about my late reply. I’m getting tired more often in my old age and took a nap. 🙂
Well, the CA can in one way determine if a DUI suspect goes to jail.. He can simply decline to prosecute. That’s 100% going to keep the accused out of jail. But, I think your question is (better) in that you point out that the CA can’t really set a sentence they can only recommend. You are right. But, from a practical perspective if the CA goes to court asking simply for a fine (basically pleaing down a higher misdemenor or looking for a minimal sentence [the fine in leui of jail time]) the Court will either go with that – especially if the accused understands that he could be facing a much higher penalty if the State proceeds with the initial charge or the Court could say “no, this isn’t good enough” throwing the ball back to the CA’s court who can then either push the case forward (and provide for the defense of the accused) or just say “the State declines to prosecure at this time..” and the guy walks.
Obviously the system would have some beneficial features for those accused of minor crimes (yes, even DUI is considered a minor crime for the most part) but for those of us that keep our nose clean… well, its like watching sausage being made.
This *could* work if they did it right but I don’t think the proposed bill does that..yet. And, when given the choice I think we as citizens should side with providing protections to the accused vice making it easier for the state (the State will win more convinctions under this system but at lower penalties).
Mind you, we haven’t even had the discussion yet about the after effect (the accused is pleading guilt to a misdemenor regardless of it being a non-jailable offense) and it could hurt them later on with finding work, background checks, owning a firearm, etc.
My personal opinion? Assuming I had no money and no resources available to me. I’d tell the govt to pound sand, give me my lawyer and then prove at every step that I did the crime they are accusing me of. The State after all has the burden of proof against me. 🙂 And, they have to convince the entire jury of my guilt where I only have to get 1 person to believe me OR think the law is crooked and nullify it.
The system as is is very skewed to protecting the innocent versus prosecuting the guilty.
Ah marin, you are going to make the state spend money. However, if your offense did not carry jail time, they would not have to appoint a lawyer for you. This is where the state is going to save money, according to the plan.
I am the one who suggested increasing fines to make money. That isn’t part of the plan. That is just me having an opinion.
I think the big problem here is that most of us aren’t in trouble with the law so we don’t understand the ‘do jail time’ element of it. I am lucky. I had a family member who, along with his/her friends, got into a few scrapes during that safety net times between 18 and …oh….22. I got to hear all about it.
Absolutly I’d make the State spend money to put me away. After all, the govt has to prove it’s case against me. As I said above, when someone’s liberty is at stake the bar must be set high and a person be defended. Maybe my fiscal conservative creds get a little tarnished around the edges a bit but that’s a balance I’m willing to make so that the interests of an individual are protected by the powers of government.
I don’t think increasing fines will work – look at the abusive motorist fees or whatever it was called. Bad mojo.
While I think they can do this if you want to (and push it through the GA) I’d want some sort of circuit breaker built in to make sure that the govt isn’t just steam rolling over poor defendants who have no idea how the system works.
Eh that quote thing didn’t come out right. My only commentary was this section:
If the criminal can afford a lawyer, I doubt a judge would rule s/he should not have to pay for counseling.
Organizations offering sliding scales can go down to a very small payment and even offer payment plans. Some of these are as low as $10 per session.
marin, are you saying you think ‘jail time’ ought to remain attached to all misdemeanors?
I am saying we need to cut costs. doing away with potential jail time saves money by not having to have court appointed lawyers, then that is something we need to look at.
Again, if I’m COURT ORDERED to go to counseling, then I would demand that the court pay for it. Period. Regardless of how much money I make or if I have money to pay for a lawyer. Point of law – if I’m ordered to do something that I don’t agree to or wouldn’t do normally, why should I pay for it?
Here’s a hole in the “their insurance company can pay for it” theory:
“Recently, a court ordered that a woman convicted for
driving while intoxicated receive alcohol treatment. The
managed care company responsible for administering the
program that was to treat her denied payment. A representative of
the company, commenting on its decision, was quoted as saying that
“treatment is not medically necessary [simply] because it is court ordered.”
This was a case in NY – here is the link to the PDF. It brings up several other concerns – such as who pays for it – the courts, the insurance co. or the individual.
And do a google search on Sen. Hiram Monserrate – dude assaulted his girlfriend, was court ordered to go to counseling and blew it off 3 times. I think a stint in jail would have been more effective 😉
My brother learned his lesson after a night in jail. He was accused of giving a girl in college alcohol. Turns out, the girl who said she was 18 was really 15.
A night in jail did WONDERS for him – straightened his act out pretty quickly. Better than a fine and some court ordered therapy would have done.
errg – forgot the PDF link
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/17/2/109.pdf
What is the test for whether you can afford a lawyer or not? I don’t know. Do they look in your bank account?
I don’t know either – I’ll have to search the interwebs for that answer. If I find it, I’ll post it.
You’ve got to be dirt poor to qualify for one in W.VA
WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES
INCOME GUIDELINES
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
PURSUANT TO W.VA. CODE 29-21-1 ET SEQ.
Family of: Yearly Income Monthly Income
1 $11,040 $920
2 $14,760 $1,230
3 $18,480 $1,540
4 $22,200 $1,850
5 $25,920 $2,160
6 $29,640 $2,470
7 $33,360 $2,780
8 $37,080 $3,090
9 $40,800 $3,400
10 $44,520 $3,710
Perhaps its like free and reduced lunch–the honor system. I don’t know how that can be verified.