I have always wondered why Monday the 13th wasn't considered the unlucky 13 day. Fridays are usually great, and Mondays are blah anyway, so shouldn't Monday the 13th be unluckyer if you are superstitious that way?
Absolutely nothing exciting happened over the weekend. I worked all day Saturday as usual, and we ended up not going to Louisiana this weekend to visit my brother, for various reasons. It was too cold to put my boxers outside in the middle of the night (down to 26) which is when we leave; my mom didn't really want to leave my dad for that long yet (he still has a cold); and frankly, I don't think I've caught up on my sleep from being up all night last Saturday night in the ER. The kid's mom said she wanted to take her to Oklahoma this weekend, but since as I said she only follows through 1 in every 5 times or so, plus she was just here last weekend, I'd say there is a pretty good chance we will be able to go to Louisiana this weekend. If not, the weekend after.
Ok, on to the rant.
I have debated for some time just how much information about family and certain personal situations I should put on my blog. I have finally come to the conclusion that those who read it who know me personally already know all of this anyway, and everyone else who reads it doesn't know me, so why not?
Saturday I got one of those automated survey telephone calls. This one had only 1 question. I was all too happy to offer my opinion on mandatory minimum sentencing, which they said at the beginning of the call was the subject, and it specifically said the information gained would be given to my congressmen. As if I believe that does much good. But anyway.
The message went on to talk about pedophiles (they used that word) and made reference to the guy who recently got sentenced to just 60 days after being convicted of sexual assault of a child or some such charge, and whether I would like to help insure that such short sentences can't happen in the future by implementing mandatory minimum sentencing.
The problem I had with their question at the end, aside from the problem I have with mandatory minimum sentencing in general, was that it was phrased like this:
"Would you like to see mandatory minimum sentences implemented for those convicted of assaulting a child?"
No. I would not.
No, and not because I am totally against mandatory minimum sentencing in general, but because of the way they worded their question. If I was to agree with mandatory minimum sentencing for any crime, it would be for the punishment of pedophiles, and I might well have said "yes" if they had worded their question differently.
If they had said "for those convicted of sexually assaulting a child" my answer may have been yes. But they didn't say that. They left out the word "sexually". Which means at some point down the road, some parent is going to be sentenced under strict mandatory minimum guidelines because they were charged with assault of a child for spanking their child. Or because their child got bruises playing whatever game and the authorities involved themselves when it wasn't necessary. Or some other equally unjust reason, with the facts completely twisted.
Over the years I've come to know and believe a few things about the criminal legal system. I worked in it for 10 years, but my real knowledge has come from other experience (fortunately nothing to do with anyone I know harming children), and I think I can reasonably apply my general knowledge to various legal situations and measure how I think things would turn out.
I'm not going to go into a sidebar about whether spanking your child is right or wrong. That is for each of us to decide for ourself. But no matter what I believe about whether I would do it personally or not, I don't believe that a simple spanking, within reason, that is not carried out to the point of physical abuse, should be considered assault.
If that law was passed based on the way they worded it in their question, then somewhere, sometime, a spanking would become an assault. Or a kid accidentally getting a bruise from a baseball or softball while their dad was practicing with them. Or any number of other innocent scenarios. Some parent, probably lots of parents, would end up being sentenced to a freakishly long amount of time in prison because of mandatory minimum sentencing, for unjust reasons.
I know it would happen, because it's the same legal system who labeled lighting hairspray on fire (which, come on, all boys do at some point, or watch someone else do) as "arson" when nothing actually caught on fire, and labeled not showing up in court for a ticket as "escape." Trust me when I say there are numerous other examples I could give you.
The legal system seems to love to over-label everything whenever possible. Maybe they are bored and arresting a kid for "arson" is more exciting than telling a kid to knock it off and get his butt home; and "escape" is far more stimulating than "didn't show up to court for a speeding ticket".
Whatever the reason, if they want me to agree to mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for pedophiles, then they'd better phrase their question appropriately. Otherwise I'm not going to run the risk of agreeing with something that they could twist in so many different ways.
"Oh, wow, listen to her, she's really jaded and bitter about the legal system."
You bet your ass I am. It's the system that sentenced my brother to just under 10 years in federal prison because of their mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. You remember Michael Fortier, the guy who conspired with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombings, only they didn't find Fortier as culpable. He only got sentenced to 12 years, just 2 years more than Phillip, and is out of jail already, safe and sound in the witness protection program.
I would never try to minimize what Phillip did. But in a little bit of his defense, he was on drugs at the time and wasn't even consciously aware of what he was doing (which I know is no excuse), but he certainly didn't plan or conspire to do what he did. Nor did what he did result in 168 deaths. And yet, he only got 2 years less than the guy who conspired with his friends to kill all of those people. And all because of "mandatory minimum sentencing".
Feel free to tell me if you think that's right, and why. I'd love to hear it.
Some people agree with me. There is a bill pending which if passed would reinstate the federal parole system, which was phased out in the 1990's. Currently, with no parole, inmates serve about 85% of their sentenced time and are on supervised release for a certain period after they get out. The bill proposes to reinstate the parole system, meaning inmates could be released sooner, and was proposed in part due to the unfairness of the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Click here or here if you care to read more about it, and here to help support the bill.
It so happens that the system that handed down both Phillip's and Fortier's sentences is the same sytem I used to work for. In fact, Phillip will likely report to the office I worked at when he's released.
Although I left that job several years ago, well before Phillip's troubles began, I used to be proud that I had worked there, even a little regretful about leaving. I am neither of those now. Now, I am ashamed to have been a part of such a flawed system.
So bring on your telephone surveys about my opinion of the legal system. I'll give it to you. I only wish I could have done more than "press 2 for no".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment