good use of resources, I meant. Missed edit window.
So we’ve now reached a point that “60 does of heroin is not that much?”
How much crime takes place, to produce and procure that 60 doses? I know this board is liberal, and I’m to the right of the norm, but I’m surprised at the amount of “it wasn’t that much heroin, so it’s no big deal” discussion we are having. I’d like to know what Susan would do if someone was selling “only 60 doses” of heroin in her pretty neighborhood a month ago? Think should would have called the cops???
I have no problem with her being arrested and taken back. The MI authorties got a tip, they followed up on that tip and found a fugitive and arrested her. That is their job. They don’t ‘judge’. I don’t know if she will be brought before a judge, that is why I say the governor of MI, after checking to make sure she has been good while ‘away’, should pardon her and get her out of the MI system ASAP.
It’s very easy for a state agency to obtain criminal records from any other state, county or city agency. Take maybe 15 minutes of work, as opposed to all the work and time that will not be involved in incarcerating that poor woman.
And DAs nowadays have enormous latitude in which cases they persue and which they don’t. They can’t pursue everything so they HAVE to pick and choose.
Careful examination of this message board will reveal that it is not a courtroom. The idea that we can’t discuss anything a court does is ludicrous in any event.
Yeah, right, when she broke out of jail they issued a warrant for her arrest humpty-million years ago and kept it open because no statute of limitations, and then they got the tip and compared fingerprints, and had her located. At this point they might have asked, “Who have we located, and is it worth the trouble of bringing her in. Is this an appropriate use of our resources?” The answer would clearly have been no.
I think that is an unfair characterization of my arguments and a sleazy attempt to get around them by using what amounts to an ad hominem attack. When come back bring pie. Or at least something worthy of the Dope.
To my mind, it would make sense to have a limitations period on all but the most serious bodily injury type crimes such as rape and murder - including jail escape for people charged with lesser crimes.
It simply makes no sense, in a cost/benefit type analysis or a justice analysis, to punish someone for a crime that occurred so long ago.
The harm to society is greater from the punishment than from the lack of punishment. No useful purpose is served by the punishment in terms of specific deterrence (there is no indication that, but for this punishment, she will go out and deal heroin again) or general deterrence (few are likely to think “wow, if I deal Heroin, I can break out of jail, change my identity, spend 30+ years on the run living a crime-free life - and they won’t jail me! Might as well deal to my heart’s content!”); no victims of her crime or relatives of victims are anxiously awaiting the day of justice, as would be the case in rape or murder … in fact, punishing her will achieve exactly nothing, other than to uphold some sort of symbolic notion of inextorable justice - rendered somewhat absurd by the fact that her co-criminal was parolled decades ago after only an extra year in jail.
Balance that against the expense of imprisionment, to the state, to her personally, and to her family and community.
In my opinion, imprisionment serves three purposes: rehabilitation, deterrence and punishment. It cannot “rehabilitate” her, because by the account we have she has rehabilitated herself; it will not “deter” either her or others; and the “punishment” element has been elided by time (hence the call for limitations) and the fact that there are no victims awaiting justice.
Your analogy is off. The correct analogy would be " I’d like to know what Susan would do if someone was selling “only 60 doses” of heroin in her pretty neighborhood 30 years ago? Think she would have called the cops???
[/QUOTE]
Answer: no, of course. It would be a pointless exercise. Just as her arrest is now.
There have to be repercussions for escaping from jail, or what’s the point of having a jail in the first place?
Now, I have no problem with a judge taking a look at the specifics of her case and deciding that her years as a law-abiding citizen negate the need to further punish her for something that occurred so long ago. Or that community service of some kind should stand in for further punishment. Or, even, that she needs to serve the remainder of the sentence she would have served (1 or 2 years) plus a little extra for the escape. Whatever – that’s a judge’s job, to decide these things.
However, I wouldn’t like it at all if some agency had just declined to follow up on a tip about an escaped prisoner, no matter how long ago he or she had escaped. You can’t give away free passes just because the escape happened x-amount of years ago… Escaping from prison is serious and should be treated seriously.
But I do have enough compassion in me for this case in particular to hope that she is treated with a degree of leniency based on the obvious fact that she has rehabilitated herself and is no longer a threat to society.
According to mahalo the drug arrest was Susan’s first, and she got kinda screwed at sentencing.
Also, she was engaged once before, but when she told the guy about her past he split.
She seems to me to be exactly the kind of person I want in my society.
But lets lock her up and see what that does to her.
I wonder how many are out there in a like situation watching her case with great interest.
No, my analogy is fine.
She (and many on this board) are saying this is a victimless crime. It was “only 60 doses.” We can all be magnanimous when discussing something that happened in the past, when the action doesn’t touch us. But if this crime was committed today, on our street we would be outraged, and would expect police and court action.
Was it her first offense? What the hell does long term warehousing solve? It’s just so stupid to spend tax money that way in the first place for drug offenses. If it was her first offense, much less could be spent on intensive probation including drug tests and mandatory employment.
Whether the drug crime was her first offense or not, it wasn’t her ONLY offense. She also escaped from prison and falsified her identity. Those are not charges to be taken lightly.
As for the protests that she’s been a model citizen, I’ll echo what others have already said: How do you know that? For that matter, how would the arresting officers know that? That’s something for the courts to decide, not the cops.
Note that this is not a case of “guilty until proven innocent.” We already know that she’s guilty. This is a case of determining the extent of her guilt and granting leniency as it is merited. That’s unpleasant, but it’s far better than shrugging one’s shoulders and saying, “Oh, that happened a long time ago. Let it slide.”
Yeah well, trying to blow up cops is a something guaranteed to get other cops stirred up. Herion is a serious crime, but domestic terrorism, especially during the period of “The War on Terror” is guaranteed to elicit a hard response.
But hey, she’s local, and I heard all the crying and whining about her case. :rolleyes:
Of course, this is spot on and the only reasonable course of action. No matter if she was a tupperwareladysoccermomPTApresident, there has always been a stain on her because of her past. Hell, now it’s out in the open the perp herself might feel a sense of relief (but probably not until such time as her sentence is suspended).
I think the majority of the “outrage” in this thread is preemptive. For some reason, there seems to be little hope that TPTB in MI will make what is believed by many to be a sensible call. It’s just kinda fun to wave pitchforks and torches sometimes is all.
Why?
I see lots of value in applying limitations periods to such crimes - a limitations period is pretty well the same as “it happened a long time ago, let it slide”.
For example, under federal law there is a five-year statute of limitations on non-capital crimes, such as dealing drugs: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=3282
See also: http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1842p.txt
[Emphasis added]
I know that in the US there is no limitations period on prision-escape, and that some of the concerns raised by charging a person (such as the lack of evidence after passage of time) do not apply; but I question the justice of the distinction. Why is it “just” that a person against whom there is overwhelming evidence cannot be charged after five years, whereas the same person, charged and convicted but escaped, can be jailed - 30 years later? Surely some of the same principles apply.
You do the crime; you do the time. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
That said, her case has to be taken over the entire totality of her life now. What kind of society have we become that rigid application of law is everything? Respect for the law is certainly important here, even three decades later. But justice isn’t about blind obedience to the law. And if it is, then this society is more screwed up than anyone can imagine.
As I and several others have said, we do fully believe that a measure of leniency is in order – if she has indeed kept her nose clean, as many people apparently assume. The law itself allows for that leniency.
I posted earlier that she should get six months for the escape. I can’t get excited about the false identity unless it served a purpose in ongoing criminal activity.
I don’t have much sympathy for heroin users. No users, no drug crime. For me, it’s less about the individual here and more about the pointlessness of locking up everyone involved.
There is generally no statute of limitations for murder, for example.
As repeatedly stated in this thread, there is no SoL for prison escape precisely because no one wants to send the message that if you can escape and stay hidden long enough, you’re scot free. We can all debate the right or wrong of that fact in cases like this or even lesser cases, but this is the way it is and it is not going to change.
In any event, I would find it extremely unlikely that the woman in the OP is going to spend more than 2-3 years in prison at this point.
I think the main problem with this case is the fact that this woman was originally jailed for what many (including myself) consider to be a dubious drug policy in the first place. I suspect that if her crime had been a violent one the overall sentiment in this thread would be quite different.
It makes sense that there be no statute of limitations for murder (or I would argue rape or other serious personal injury crimes), because these are crimes of personal violation in which there are victims or relatives and friends of victims around who would want justice for what had been done.
It makes less sense to have no limitations for prision-break, as it is not comparable in impact to murder.
A lengthy limitations period would not I think have any significant escape-enabling effect - as long as it did not apply in cases such as murder, rape, etc. I doubt very much that the sort of person who contemplates prision break is going to plan in terms of staying out thirty years without attracting police attention.
As for this:
Yes, of course debating about it on the Dope will not change the law. So?