On Teen pleads innocent in drunken-driving death
Posted on June 17 at 9:58 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Interesting discussion. Perhaps the Gazette could do an analysis of cases pending in Rock and some surrounding counties, to see how many 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., cases are pending. Maybe, too, how many people have been convicted of same over the past few years or so. In this way, we could get an idea of how much it would cost to incarcerate all of those people in prison for 5, 10 or more years. I think we could have some really meaningful discussion with those numbers.
Now, a couple of points...First, state law does provide for periods of incarceration for anything after first offense. The "Judicial Council" establishes guidelines within their district. This is calculated using a fairly simple chart, but with some very subjective factors. And, Judges within the Districts are not bound by those guidelines.
Second, people accused of committing crimes are not criminals until they are convicted. So, to say that criminals have more rights than victims just because they get out on bail during pendancy of their case is misguided. I have stated before on other forums that Judges HAVE TO let the accused out on bail. The only factor they can use to establish bail is whether the person is likely to show up in court. That's it. No consideration for danger to society, likelihood to re-offend while on bail, etc.. This is by state statute.
I have arrested people for 5th, 6th, even 8th offense OWI who have spent time in prison but still re-offend. I don't think those people are re-offending because they "got off easy."
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that people get very passionate about issues and lose their objectivity and reasonableness. Those of us who deal with offenses on a daily basis abhor those acts as much does anyone. Yet, our understanding of the system (and it really is a GOOD system), helps most of us to be a little more objective.
The system treats all accused as exactly that: accused. Makes no difference if it was a case reconstructed from evidence well after-the-fact, or whether the accused was caught, "red handed." Accused is accused; not convicted. If the second, fourth, fifth, and other amendments don't apply to people facing trial, then for whom were they written? Of course they are for the accused.
On Clinton janitor won’t be arrested
Posted on May 29 at 6:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I would caution all readers to be careful in drawing inferences from screen names. Some of them can be misleading. This is all the more true when a screen name is attached to material that seems to eminate from knowledge or authority. While it is unlawful for a person to pass themself off as a police officer in person or on the telephone, there is no such law regarding the use of screen names that might infer such employment.
On Clinton janitor won’t be arrested
Posted on May 29 at 6:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
officerfriendly1: I have written of my friendship with Fritz in order to point out that some people in this world really are good people, and their actions can be taken at face value. My friendship with Fritz - though it was dozens of years ago - was defining for me. As much bad as I have seen in my life - and that is a LOT - I also learned that some pople are just genuinely good. I often ate lunch with Fritz at the admin building, and was at his home on several occasions helping him tend to his wife who was left an invalid following a stroke. We never touched even for a handshake, except when I hugged him at Hazel's funeral many years later. And, yet, many people would be suspicious of my friendship with him.
One final comment from me on this matter. There are a number of specialists who were likely involved in this investigation, including forensics examiners, child services experts, and others. It appears that the decision was made that there was no or insufficient evidence of legal wrongdoing.
Not every allegation gets charged and adjudicated. Officers determine whether an arrest in in order, the DA decides whether to formally charge, and a jury finally decides those matters brought before them. At each step in the process, there is an examination of fact and evidence.
An officer needs very little in order to arrest on suspicion. A DA needs a little bit more in order to pass the test of Probable Cause and to issue a criminal information. The jury needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.
The DA has apparently determined that there is insufficient evidence to get a judge to even find probable cause to bind the guy over for trial. That is telling. If there is not enough evidence for probable cause, then, no, it is not up to a jury to decide. You don't force someone to defend against an unfounded accusation that is known to be unfounded by the prosecution.
On Clinton janitor won’t be arrested
Posted on May 29 at 3:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I recall that shortly after I graduated high school in another state, a teacher was accused of inappropriate behavior with girls he coached on the high school swim team. It took a while, but eventually many former students and swimmers came forward. My sister adored the man, and swore he was innocent. I knew him as a family friend and reserved judgement until the jury found him guilty. He committed suicide before sentencing. Read "Secret Lessons," By Don Weber and Charles Bosworth (also both family friends of mine). Interestingly, after the first allegations were made, many previous victims came forward. A big difference from what we have now.
I also recall the janitor from my elementary school, named Fritz. I liked Fritz, and became friendly with him. I could often be found hanging around with him as he went about his chores. In later years, he moved to the District offices, which was very near my mom's work. Again, I frequently went over and visited with Fritz after closing and while I was waiting for my mom. No one around except me and my pal Fritz.
I remember the long discussions we had about my family troubles and my Dad's drinking. Boy, was I vulnerable! He could have led me just about anywhere. The place he led me was to a better understanding of how people cope with their problems, and how important to not give up on the people you care about. Not at any time did Fritz ever act in a sexual way. He was a kind and wonderful man who took a young kid under his thoughtful and caring wing.
Was it inappropriate for Fritz to let me hang around, especially in those later years when there was absolutely no one in the admin building? Absolutely! Would many of the posters here want to hang him, and accuse him of grooming me? Beyond a doubt. And, yet, his only motivation was to be a positive role model for a kid in need.
On Man receives two OWIs within 13 hours
Posted on May 23 at 4:15 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Kudos to ms_sassy_wi!
It is really important in discussions such as these to keep things in perspective and factual. She did the homework, and hooray for both her sincerety and her eloquence!
On Man receives two OWIs within 13 hours
Posted on May 22 at 6:15 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
There is a statute that allows a court (judge) to impound a car if the driver is revoked AND the driver is the owner. It ONLY allows for impoundment, not forfeiture of the vehicle. A judge can order the vehicle impounded for a certain length of time, and the owner/driver then must pay the impound fees or they become a lien on the vehicle.
I have never heard of that statute being used, however. Perhaps others have.
On Man receives two OWIs within 13 hours
Posted on May 21 at 9:47 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
And yes, you can be convicted of OWI even if your impairment is caused by a lawfully prescribed and administered medication. If you're on prescription painkillers, anti-anxiety drugs, muscle relaxants, etc., and you are too impaired to drive, you can be arrested and convicted for OWI.
On Man receives two OWIs within 13 hours
Posted on May 21 at 9:41 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The statute for Operating Under Influence of Alcohol or Other Drug states that "No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle..."
(a) Under the influence of an intoxicant, a controlled substance, a controlled substance analog or any combination of an intoxicant, a controlled substance and a controlled substance analog, under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving, or under the combined influence of an intoxicant and any other drug to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving...
One statute section that covers all. There are further subsections that delineate whether the person had a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration, "detectable amount" of drugs, etc., but those are charged as separate offenses in ADDITION to the OWI charge.
Secondly, there is no law probiting a revoked or suspended driver from registering a vehicle.
On Officers to be commemorated
Posted on May 8 at 9:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The public is most certainely welcome.
Page 1 of 11 | Next
On Teen pleads innocent in drunken-driving death
Posted on June 18 at 1:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Heat: Thanks for the clarification. In my post, I was speaking specifically to whether a person could be held without bail as some seem to be suggesting. As you noted, judges can set a wide variety of "conditions" on the bail. I suppose that's saying that one could be denied bail if s/he refused to accept the conditions and sign the form. But, the only real obstacle to a person signing a bail is the amount of cash required (if any). And your cite from Shumate really sums it up succinctly.