Friday, December 17, 2010

A mere six-month jail sentence for 19th drunk driving conviction?!?!?

As detailed in this local article, which is headlined "19th DUI gets Santa Rosa man 6-month sentence," an inclination to treat drunk drivers leniently can continue even well after a defendant has more than a dozen convictions for this dangerous behavior.  Here are the notable details (which actually highlight for me why technology rather than longer prison terms should be the focal point of reducing the dangers and harms of drunk driving):

A Santa Rosa man with 19 drunken driving convictions was spared a prison term Thursday for his latest offense, prompting an outcry from prosecutors.

William Rylan Beall, 65, whose record of drunken driving stretches back 44 years, was sentenced to six months in jail by visiting Alameda County Judge Julie Conger. But he could end up serving it in an alcohol treatment facility if bed space becomes available.

That he will be free until Jan. 21 and was not given a prison sentence provoked an angry reaction from Sonoma County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Bill Brockley. “It’s putting our community at risk. He’s proven he’s a danger and can’t conform his behavior to societal norms,” Brockley said. “He can’t stop drinking and when he drinks, he drives. He puts your family, my family, and all families at risk.”

Prosecutors had sought a two-year prison term as recommended by the county probation department.... In recommending the mid-term prison sentence, the probation department took into account Beall’s clean record for the past eight years.

Until his latest drunken driving offense in July, Beall, a real estate agent who lives in Oakmont, had stayed out of trouble since 2002. But his finances and health began to deteriorate and he relapsed, said his attorney, Steve Weiss. “He has been a strong participant in AA the last eight years,” said Weiss. “Unfortunately, he reverted to very old habits.”

“The judge focused on a number of things — the eight years he had been sober, his health and the best way to protect the community, which she felt was to keep him on probation for five years — keep him under close supervision and give him a six-month residential treatment program to sharpen his sobriety skills.”...

Beall’s record of alcohol-related driving convictions began in 1966, according to a pre-sentencing report. He was convicted of drunken driving seven times in the 1970s, five times in the 1980s, four times in the 1990s and again in 2002, prior to his most recent conviction.

Three of the convictions involved traffic collisions. In one case, he was seen running a red light at approximately 50 to 60 miles per hour. “It is extraordinarily fortunate the defendant has never seriously injured anyone or taken a life, given his disregard for the law and the well-being of others,” Deputy Probation Officer Sierra Grohl wrote in her report.

Beall was given probation six times, required to attend frequent AA meetings and comply with Antabuse drug therapy, but he continued to drink and drive. He was sent to prison for two years in 1998.

In addition to his 19 prior drunken driving convictions, there were six additional arrests that did not lead to convictions, according to the pre-sentencing report. His blood alcohol in 2002 registered .22, almost three times the level at which a person is presumed too drunk to drive.... The probation officer noted “it is plausible he truly was sober the past eight years or he would have likely appeared before the court much sooner.”

Weiss noted that early on the district attorney’s office had offered his client a 16-month jail term and with good behavior, he could have been out in half that time.  But Brockley said Beall rejected the offer and another judge refused to consider a non-prison sentence. “A person with this type of alcohol history and arrest record should be going back to state prison,” Brockley said.

Though I generally agree with the prosecutor's view here that such an extended criminal history justifies another trip to state prison, I also think this case spotlights the need to use ignition-locks and other forms of technology to try to prevent chronic offenders from ever being able to start a car with any alcohol in their system.

December 17, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Monday, December 13, 2010

Supreme Court Justices are now doing reading on iPads and Kindles, when will law students?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this new video from a portion of a C-SPAN interview with new Justice Elena Kagan. The video is titled "Justice Kagan on Using a Kindle to Read Briefs," and in the segment Justice Kagan reports on how she uses the Kindle to read all the SCOTUS briefs, and also discusses that Justice Scalia has his briefs on an iPad. (Hat tip: How Appealing.)

In a series of posts about technology and legal education over at the blog Law School Innovation (where I am cross-posting this post), I have suggested that the advancement of new reading technologies will at some point transform legal education. I articulated the point this way in this post after first seeing the iPad in action earlier this year:

[A] casebook-friendly e-tablet is only the tip of the new media iceberg that could be facilitated by an iPad or some other tablet that becomes to casebooks what the iPod became to vinyl records.  Of course, just as record companies (and some artists) resisted music being packaged and distributed via new media, casebook publishers (and some authors) may resist legal materials being packaged distributed via new media.  But, as the iPod and the DVR and other digital innovations have demonstrated, a better means to distribute content digitally will eventually prevail over analog precursors.  The iPad may not prove to be the casebook tipping-point technology, but it seems to me to be only a question of when, not whether, the traditional casebook will go the way of vinyl records and VCR tapes.

When traveling to speak at various conferences, I have noticed more and more lawyers with iPads and other e-readers. I expect that buzz about the Justices reading briefs on e-readers might add even more juice to the on-going digital revolution in the collection and distribution of legal materials. And if law schools do not get with the program soon, I fear we will be doing even worse than usual in training the next generation of lawyers.

Though this post fits better at my Law School Innovation blog, I have cross-posted it here because I am eager to hear from practitioners about their use of technology (and whether there are any particular technologies that a criminal law professor ought to make the focus of more student instruction). In addition, I have to assume that it is only a matter of time before we have a federal sentencing guidelines app.

December 13, 2010 in On blogging, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Should an inmate be able to use Facebook?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this ABC News story which is headlined "Convicted Murderer Justin Walker Used a Blackberry to Talk to Friends on Facebook While in Prison."  Here is how it begins:

The mother of an Oklahoma man who was shot to death is furious that her son's killer was able to get a Blackberry in his cell and has been corresponding with friends and posting photos on Facebook.

Cathy Lawrence, the mother of slain Sheriff Dwight Woodrell Jr., told ABCNews.com that Justin Walker, the man serving a 30-year sentence for her son's murder, doesn't deserve to be alive, let alone to be updating his Facebook status.

December 2, 2010 in Prisons and prisoners, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Monday, November 22, 2010

"Courts videoconference defendants to save money"

The title of this post is the headline of this interesting piece from today's USA Today.  Here are excerpts:

Everyone is entitled to his or her day in court, but a growing number of people get it without setting foot in a courtroom.  Courts across the country are embracing videoconferencing as a way for defendants to appear before a judge without leaving prison or jail, according to a recent survey by the National Center for State Courts.

As state and local governments continue to see their budgets squeezed, they are increasingly looking for ways to save money through technology, says Kannan Sreedhar, managing director of Verizon Connected Healthcare Solutions.  When his company demonstrated its Telejustice products at a meeting of the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials in Houston in August, he says, he was stunned by the level of interest. "We were inundated with people who wanted to talk to us," Sreedhar says.

Sreedhar says the newer technology is based on Internet protocols offering higher resolution than previous generations, and it's easier to operate.  The newest wave: mobile video units that can be used in hospital rooms, mental health facilities and other venues to arraign people too sick to appear in court....

When the National Center for State Courts surveyed court systems in September, 100 of the 162 that responded were already using videoconferencing for some criminal matters, according to the study results published on the center's website.

Pennsylvania estimates it has saved $31 million, and Utah courts have reduced their transportation costs by one-third, according to the survey.  The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services began using videoconferencing earlier this year for inmates who appeal grievance hearings to a circuit court.  "We really think it's going to be a tremendous public-safety improvement and considerable cost savings," says spokesman Mark Vernarelli.

The criminal-justice section of the American Bar Association hasn't taken a formal position on videoconferencing for hearings such as arraignments but discourages it in trials, says spokeswoman Stephanie Ortbals-Tibbs.

As I have stated in a number of prior posts on related technological developments, the question is not whether new technologies with significantly change our criminal justice system, but rather when and how and by how much.

A few posts covering various tech issues:

November 22, 2010 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Sunday, November 07, 2010

"Ankle monitors: a high-demand accessory for minor criminals"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable and fascinating new article from today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Hat tip to the frequent must-read website The Crime Report.)  Here are excerpts:

Electronic monitoring devices, black anklets made of rubber and plastic, are not exactly coveted, but in Allegheny County they are certainly in high demand.  Last week, about 1,200 people were wearing the monitoring units, mostly used to enforce house arrest for those convicted in Common Pleas Court of minor criminal offenses.  Another 925 people were waiting for them.

The electronic monitoring waiting list started ballooning about a year ago, about the same time the court introduced a program to expedite minor cases. "It worked overly well," said Common Pleas Judge Beth A. Lazzara, one of two judges who hear cases through the program, called the Phoenix docket.  A backlog of cases poured through, about 4,000 since January, she estimated.

"What we're getting now is a bubble," said Judge Jeffrey A. Manning, administrative judge of the court's criminal division.... "We're doing our best to expedite everyone," said Frank Scherer, manager of the county's monitoring program, part of the Adult Probation Department.  The department tries to get an anklet to a new person the same day it is returned from someone else.

But the county owns only 1,200 of the devices, which cost about $2,500 each.  At any time, more than 2,000 people are required to wear them. "With that comes manpower issues," said Mr. Scherer.  "If we were able to get equipment for all 925 people, we'd have to hire probably three dozen more probation officers and get more monitors and computer equipment."

Across Pennsylvania, electronic monitoring waiting lists are not unheard of. Westmoreland County has a waiting list of 177 people, down from more than 200 last year.  Philadelphia County had a waiting list earlier this year with 73 names on it.  The list has since been eliminated.  "We bought more monitors," said court administrator David Lawrence. "Easy." Montgomery County usually has a waiting list with five or six people on it....

Allegheny County's list is long partly because the county often leads the state in arrests for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In 2009, 5,208 people were arrested on DUI charges here, compared with 4,748 in Philadelphia County, said Catherine Tress, director of the Pennsylvania DUI Association's Western Pennsylvania office....

Allegheny County needs house arrest, said Judge Manning. The punishment is an alternative to a jail sentence, and without it, following mandatory minimum sentencing requirements would inundate the county jail.  "And there is no room without building a bigger jail facility," Judge Manning said.

The anklets Allegheny County uses are not GPS-enabled.  But they do allow the probation department to monitor the comings and goings of an offender, comparing their movement to the times they are permitted out.  The probation department enters into a computer a range of times when the offender is permitted out, such as for work, drug and alcohol treatment, church services or medical appointments.

The department places a receiver in the offender's house.  When the offender is within a certain range of it, the receiver emits a signal.  When the person is out of range, the signal stops.  Employees at a monitoring center staffed 24 hours a day watch a central screen and notify officials if the signal stops. Then, probation officers can be sent out.

High-risk offenders and pre-trial defendants -- placed on house arrest while their cases move through the court -- are typically given an anklet within a few days.  Jail inmates waiting to be released to house arrest must be given anklets within 72 hours.  But the majority of people sentenced to electronic monitoring are low-risk offenders charged with crimes such as driving under the influence, drug possession or retail theft. They wait.

Especially with tighter budgets and perhaps growing public safety concerns in the months and years to come, these stories are likely to get more common. But, as I have said before and will say again, as long as technocorrections seems to aid public safety at a lower cost than traditional incarceration, this is sure to remain a growth industry.

November 7, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offense Characteristics, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

"Elderly, Ill Sex Offender Sues Perry Over Monitor"

The title of this post is the headline of this interesting and effective new piece from the Texas Tribune reporting on interesting technocorrections developments and litigation in the Lone Star State.  Here are the particulars:

Sixty-one-year-old Marvin Brown has had three mini-strokes in the last two months. He has diabetes, stage-four renal disease and congestive heart failure.  On good days, he walks with a cane.  Other times, he gets around with a walker or an electric wheelchair.

But according to Gov. Rick Perry, Brown is among the most dangerous sex offenders in Texas.  Perry has ordered that Brown and other registered sex offenders who were previously released from continuous monitoring must now be monitored again with ankle bracelets.  Brown, who was convicted in 1985 of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy and of indecency with a 16-year-old boy, says forcing him to wear the ankle monitor not only puts his fragile health at risk — it's also a violation of his civil rights.  On Tuesday, he filed a lawsuit asking the federal courts to keep the state from putting him back on the monitor. “They can’t give you freedom and then take it away,” Brown says.

Last month, Perry announced a raft of new measures to crack down on what he called “the most dangerous sex offenders.”  Among other things, Perry said he would designate $1.7 million in federal grant money to help the Texas Department of Criminal Justice use technology to monitor high-risk sex offenders on parole.  “These initiatives will provide greater protections to our citizens by taking our efforts in dealing with sex offenders up yet another notch,” Perry said in a press release.

Since that announcement, 153 parolees have been returned to active electronic monitoring, says Michelle Lyons, a criminal justice department spokeswoman.  All the parolees who have received ankle bracelets, she says, were previously on a passive monitoring system that logged their daily whereabouts and created a report for parole officers.  Ankle bracelets, she says, allow for real-time monitoring to ensure sex offenders aren’t going near playgrounds or other areas where children congregate.  With the grant money, the department could put ankle bracelets on as many as 600 high-risk sex offenders.

Brown found out about Perry’s new crackdown efforts a couple of weeks ago, when his parole offic er told him he was on the list of sex offenders to be put back on active monitoring. Brown served 14 years of his 40-year sentence in the criminal justice department before he was paroled in 1999 and placed on intensive supervision, which required him to wear an ankle bracelet with a GPS monitor.  In 2007, the Board of Pardons and Paroles took Brown off intensive supervision and removed the monitor.  With the monitor off, Brown says, he could lead a somewhat normal life — shopping, making friends, eating out with family and attending church without an ominous-looking briefcase that carried a beeping device.

He could also deal more easily with his health problems, going to the doctor’s office and taking emergency trips to the hospital when necessary.  Brown, who lives alone, had a life alert-like system installed at his house so that he could use the telephone to update nurses at the hospital with his vital statistics and so that he could get quick help in case he had another stroke or heart attack and couldn’t reach the phone.  The ankle bracelet, he says, will interfere with the system, and he worries that without it he could die.  “If you have a stroke or a heart attack and nobody finds you until the next day, it’s too late,” he says...

In the lawsuit, he alleges that the state is violating his constitutional right to due process by forcing him back on the ankle monitor without justification or a legal hearing on the matter.  “It’s a public embarrassment,” Brown says.  “I don’t know how I’d be able to attend church.”...

Attorney Bill Habern has defended parolees and sex offenders like Brown for decades.  He says he sympathizes with Brown but believes his lawsuit is probably doomed.  The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — in a case Habern defended and is appealing — ruled that once a person is a convicted sex offender, the state can impose conditions it sees fit to protect the public....

Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for the governor, says the move to increase sex offender monitoring was not politically motivated but was intended to provide greater public protection from sexual predators.  Lyons, the criminal justice department spokeswoman, says she can't comment on pending litigation but maintains that the ankle monitors are designed for those who are considered at high risk for reoffending.  “I can't see how having more supervision wouldn’t add to public safety,” she says.

October 27, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Sex Offender Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Monday, October 11, 2010

New blog examining the "intersection between criminal law and emerging technology"

I am pleased to learn about this new blog, intriguingly named "Stockycat," which is "focused non-exclusively on the intersection between criminal law and emerging technology" and says it is "[d]edicated to the idea that effective law enforcement is not incompatible with a vigorous interpretation of the Fourth Amendment."

Among the many notable features of this new blog that makes it worth watching is the public policy AND government lawyer AND prosecutorial background of its author, Joshua Engel.  Here is how the author describes his background on this blog:

I am a Fellow with the Ohio State Bar Foundation. In addition, I have been honored as a recipient of a Harry S Truman Scholarship for Public Service.  I recently served as Chief Legal Counsel for the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

Prior to joining the Department of Public Safety, I was one of the most respected and successful felony prosecutors in Ohio.  In 2007, my work as a prosecutor was recognized by a Meritorious Service Award from the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

I began my career as a prosecutor by serving under current Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in Middlesex County, Massachusetts.  I started my legal career at Choate, Hall & Stewart, a large Boston law firm. 

Though the blog seems focused at the start on Fourth Amendment issues, I am hopeful that we will before long see posts about GPS tracking of released offenders and/or internet restrictions as a form of punishment and/or restitution as a punishment simply for downloading child porn and/or any of the many other sentencing law and policy issues that arise at the "intersection between criminal law and emerging technology."

October 11, 2010 in On blogging, Technocorrections, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Assailing too-broad internet bans as part of a sentence

The National Law Journal has this notable new commentary headlined "Banned from the Internet: Prohibiting a defendant on probation from conducting any business online is overly restrictive and not reasonably related to legitimate sentencing goals."  The piece is authored by A. Jeff Ifrah and Steven Eichorn, and here are excerpts:

Given the pervasiveness of the Internet, it is curious to us that some courts have been all too willing to prohibit Internet use for defendants on probation or supervised release. Are such Internet bans narrowly tailored to affect "only such deprivations of liberty or property as are reasonably necessary," a statutory factor in the conditions of release issued by a judge? Recent cases suggest the answer is no.

Internet bans are most commonly issued by courts as a condition of probation in child pornography cases in which the defendants may have utilized the Internet as a tool to lure their victims.  But even when the courts have permitted Internet bans in such cases, they have often noted the harshness of a complete ban and have listed numerous factors to consider before imposing a ban, such as whether it "is narrowly tailored to impose no greater restriction than necessary," the "availability of filtering software that could allow [the defendant's] Internet activity to be monitored and/or restricted" and the duration of the ban....

Given the limitations imposed in child-pornography cases, the growing number of Internet bans in white-collar cases raises our eyebrows.  Is an Internet ban appropriate for a defendant who used the Internet to perpetrate a fraud like a telemarketing scheme or investment fraud?...

Clearly, courts would not apply a complete ban on conducting business for a defendant who operated many fraudulent brick-and-mortar companies with separate storefronts.  Courts readily understand that banning a defendant from conducting any further business is not reasonably related to legitimate sentencing goals and is much more restrictive than necessary. So why are courts willing to place a complete ban on Internet business for defendants who use the Internet to conduct their business and bar them from "the town square for the global village of tomorrow?" And why are courts handing down more restrictive Internet bans in white-collar cases than those handed out in Internet child pornography cases?

The answer may be related to some judges' lack of appreciation of the importance of the Internet in today's society.  We hope that, as online commerce becomes universally perceived as being as routine as business conducted in a brick-and-mortar store, courts will be careful to ensure that this critical form of communication with customers is not restricted in the absence of compelling circumstances.  Anything less would clearly constitute "deprivations of liberty or property" that are far from "reasonably necessary."

October 10, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Technocorrections, White-collar sentencing | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Big Brother technocorrections to help Ohio keep track of sex offenders

Somewhere George Orwell must be smiling as he reads about the latest technocorrections development in this Ohio editorial headlined "Tracking sex offenders."  Here are the details:

Ohio is moving proactively to keep better track of registered sex offenders. With the help of a federal grant, the state is launching an automated system that should save time and money for local sheriff's departments.

The system, called Active Contact, automatically calls offenders to remind them to renew contact with Ohio's electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification program. The system regularly updates the registry and verifies the accuracy of its data.

Discrepancies or a disconnected phone number would alert authorities that an offender may have tried to relocate secretly. That information would allow sheriffs to use resources more efficiently when they assign deputies to investigate offenders' registration in person.

The new system will reimburse sheriffs for pursuing high-level offenders who flee Ohio. Some offenders have avoided prosecution because their home counties can't afford the overtime and travel expenses needed to find and extradite them.

The system is scheduled to take effect in all 88 Ohio counties by next month. Keeping current on the whereabouts of the more than 20,000 registered sex offenders in Ohio, and going after those who don't register with the state's reporting program as the law requires, are essential to public safety.

The name Active Contact for this program seems like an impressive 2010 example of Newspeak.

October 7, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Sex Offender Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

"The Role of Social Media in Sentencing Advocacy"

The title of this post is the headline of this new article from the New York Law Journal. Here is how it begins:

Embarrassing Facebook photos and regrettable MySpace statements are starting to become commonplace in pre-sentencing reports and disposition hearings. At the same time, defendants and their advocates are acknowledging the power of social media as a tool to generate mitigating evidence.

While there seems to be an unending supply of negative and inculpatory postings in social networking profiles, there is also the potential for uncovering a humanizing portrait for the defense to present at sentencing.

Day-in-the-life videos are a staple of tort practice to support damage claims and in criminal prosecutions to showcase a victim's life and character. The multimedia diaries and correspondence that comprise Facebook and MySpace profiles have similar potential for the defense. Since many of the accused entering the criminal justice system will be accompanied by social media, defense counsel might need to review their social space, along with medical and school records and other background information.

A preliminary audit of a client's online profile serves two purposes: (1) to identify evidence that might show up in a probation department pre-sentence report; and (2) to provide an instrument for marshalling positive information about the client. Still, social media is a two-headed coin and the first toss is usually tails.

September 29, 2010 in Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Monday, September 27, 2010

"Should sex offenders get GPS before leaving prison?"

The title of this post is the headline of this local California story.  Here is how it gets started:

At least twice in the past month, sex offenders prompted multi-agency manhunts in the North County when they refused to be monitored by GPS — a responsibility that falls on the offenders when they get out of prison. One man, who is accused of committing a sex crime the day after being paroled, was caught days later, while the second surrendered to authorities three weeks after going offline.

The cases beg the question: Why aren’t sex offenders strapped with GPS devices before leaving prison?

In San Diego County, which has roughly 500 sex offenders who are monitored by GPS, there are outstanding warrants for 10 who have either cut off their GPS bracelets or never obtained them, according to the regional Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Task Force.

The topic has gotten the attention of local task force members, as well as state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, who authored the recently signed bill that toughened sex offender laws. His office intends to write a letter to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation asking for justification to the current policy, Fletcher said last week.

“It would seem to make sense if they have to wear GPS anyway, why not give it to them immediately? Why wait a day?” Fletcher said. “In some ways it’s indicative of how broken the system is.”

Some related posts on GPS tracking and related technocorrections:

September 27, 2010 in Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Sex Offender Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Another sad example of a needless death because of weak sentences for drunk driving

Regular readers who know of my persistent complaints and concerns about lenient drink driving sentences will not be surprised that I am troubled by this local story, which is headlined "Woman gets 11 years for fatal DUI crash -- her second fatal DUI crash in 20 years."  Here are the details:

For the second time in two decades, a York County woman has been sent to state prison for killing someone during an alcohol-fueled crash.  Julianne D. Fetrow must serve 11 to 30 years in prison for causing a crash on Nov. 28, 2007, that killed her boyfriend, Victor E. Wolf Jr., 52,....

Her blood-alcohol level at the time was 0.256 percent, police said -- more than three times the state's legal limit. In Pennsylvania, an adult is driving drunk at 0.08 percent.

In December, Fetrow, 44, pleaded guilty to third-degree murder, homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence, DUI and driving with a DUI-suspended license.   A plea agreement negotiated by chief deputy prosecutor Tim Barker and defense attorney Rick Robinson came with a maximum possible sentence of 13 to 30 years. But presiding Common Pleas Judge John S. Kennedy was free to impose a shorter sentence.

On Monday, Kennedy imposed the 11- to 30-year sentence, noting Fetrow had asked about alcohol-addiction programs offered in the state prison system. "We hope she will take advantage of those programs," Kennedy said. "There's no doubt in our mind that if Ms. Fetrow was not an alcoholic, the crash would not have occurred." He also ordered her to pay $3,500 in fines, plus court costs.

Northern York County Regional Police said Fetrow pulled out of Wolf's driveway and into the path of a tractor-trailer.  Wolf, a passenger in his Mercury Capri convertible, was pronounced dead at York Hospital, police said.

After the crash, Fetrow told police she and Wolf had been drinking a bottle of vodka at home, then left their home and drove around to do more drinking, police said. "Julianne Fetrow stated she could not recall where she was going or how the accident occurred," court records state.

Barker has said the decision to charge her with murder, in addition to homicide by vehicle while DUI, was based on the fact that she has a long history of DUI charges and had already completed a court-ordered Alcohol Highway Safety program.

In 1991, Fetrow was ordered to serve 1-1/2 to three years in state prison for killing fisherman Morris Stanley, 55, of Camp Hill, on May 22, 1990.  York Dispatcharticles from the time state that Fetrow was driving a car in Warrington Township that went off a bridge on Route 177 in Gifford Pinchot State Park, then hit Stanley, who was fishing with his two sons.  In that case, her blood-alcohol level was 0.226 percent, police said.

Fetrow has been charged with DUI in Pennsylvania five times, according to court records. She had been free on bail for causing the crash that killed Wolf, but her bail was revoked in October 2008 because probation officers monitoring her discovered she had smoked marijuana, the judge noted Monday....

Wolf's daughter-in-law, Nicole Wolf, spoke in court about the pain her family has struggled with, especially husband Victor Wolf and their son, 5-year-old Victor Jr.... She said her son struggles with nightmares and emotional issues since his grandfather died....

Also speaking in court was Bobby L. Bricker, 36, of Dover, who was driving the tractor-trailer that struck the victim's car.  He said he's battled anger, fear and depression in the wake of the crash, but found help from a faith-based addictions program called Reformers Unanimous. He gave Fetrow a brochure about the group.

Of course, I cannot say with any confidence that giving Fetrow a tougher sentence for her prior killing or for her many other DUI charges would have prevent the death of the victim in this case.  Nevertheless, stories like this one confirm my sense that our society ought to worry more about (and get tough quicker on) repeat drunk drivers than first-offense child porn downloaders and other non-contact sex offenders.  As this case highlights, the harms that repeat drunk drivers can do are severe, profound and can have a wide range of long-term victims.

Critically, my call for a tougher criminal-justice approach to drunk is not meant as advocacy for very long prison terms or a lock-em-up-throw-away-the-key approach.  Rather, I think technocorrections such as SCRAM bracelets and breathalizer ignition locks, back up with tough and certain graduated sanctions for any violations, need to be a more regular response to the defendants like Fetrow who cannot seem to control her addictions.  Such a dynamic approach has proved successful in many drug-court settings, and I wish it would become a norm in more DUI sentencing systems.

Some related posts on sentencing drunk drivers and advocacy for ignition locks:

September 21, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offense Characteristics, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Massachusetts SJC splits over when GPS tracking can be added to sex offender sentence

As detailed in this local article, which is headlined "GPS tracking limited by SJC: Rules in case of sex offender; Sets conditions for probation use," a split high court in Massachusetts concluded yesterday that state judges "cannot change probation conditions for convicted sex offenders by requiring them to wear GPS monitoring devices unless the former inmates have violated the terms of their release." Here are the particulars:

In a 4-to-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court judge who refused to add GPS monitoring and a ban on visits to playgrounds, schools, and libraries to the probation restrictions of a former Lowell man who spent about 20 years locked up for the abduction and rape of a 7-year-old boy.

Prosecutors and lawyers for the man agreed that he had not violated any conditions of probation when the judge rejected the request by the state Probation Department in August 2009. “Here, the judge correctly found that there had been no material change in the defendant’s circumstances after the terms of probation were initially imposed that would justify the proposed additional probation condition of GPS monitoring and exclusion zones," Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote for the majority.

As the case was winding its way through the courts, the convicted sex offender, Ralph W. Goodwin, violated the terms of his probation on June 30 by failing to attend a day program as part of his mental health treatment plan, according to his appellate lawyer, Jeannine E. Mercure of Lowell. As a result, another judge ordered Goodwin to wear a GPS device, although she did not restrict where he can go.

Nonetheless, yesterday’s ruling sets limits on when judges can require GPS monitoring for freed sex offenders who were convicted years before the devices became a common condition of probation imposed at sentencing. The Probation Department currently monitors 730 freed sex offenders with GPS, according to Coria A. Holland, a department spokeswoman.

Yesterday’s ruling complements a 4-to-3 decision the high court issued in August 2009. In that case, the SJC held that a 2006 state law requiring convicted sex offenders to wear GPS devices while on probation could not automatically be applied retroactively to defendants convicted before the statute went into effect. The majority said the devices create an unconstitutional burden on the individuals’ freedom....

In a one-paragraph dissent yesterday, [Justice] Ireland wrote that he continues to believe that requiring people on probation to wear the device is “remedial rather than punitive" and should be allowed.

The court’s ruling drew criticism from law enforcement officials and victims’ rights advocates but praise from defense lawyers.

The full ruling in Massachusetts v. Goodwin is available at this link.

September 18, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Monday, September 13, 2010

"Zapping Inmates To Control Them: Harmless Or Torture?"

The title of this post is the headline of this recent NPR story which discusses the latest hot new technology that hopes to help to keep prisoners in line.  Here are excerpts:

Los Angeles authorities have unveiled a new high-tech device designed to control rowdy inmates: a mechanism that blasts millimeter beams that simulate intense heat. At the Pitchess Detention Center, north of Los Angeles, officials recently showed off their latest tool, which resembles a supersized dental X-ray machine with a flat screen on top. It works like something out of Star Trek.

"You know when they set their phasers to stun, they did that so they didn't kill people? Well, that's exactly what this is. It does stun you," says Mike Booen, a vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems. The company built the device for the Los Angeles County Jail, a scaled-down version of what it designed for the military.

"I don't care if you're the meanest, toughest person in the world," he says, "this will get your attention and make your brain focus on making it stop, rather than doing whatever you were planning on doing."...

Dave Judge, the operation deputy for the sheriff's department, says the machine is more effective than their usual methods of firing rubber bullets and tear gas grenades. "This is tame; this is mild," Judge says. "This is a great way to intervene without causing any harm. The nice thing about this is it allows you to intervene at a distance."...

Raytheon's Booen says the device sends out millimeter waves, creating a harmless, but intense sensation. "It penetrates about a 64th of an inch under your skin," Booen explains. "That's about where your pain receptacles are. So it's what it would feel like if you just opened up the doors of a blast furnace. You feel this wave of heat immediately."...

Three years ago, the Department of Defense demonstrated a bigger version of the device it considered using. During one simulation, it repelled a pretend group of protesters with the "Active Denial System" direct energy weapon mounted on a military vehicle.The U.S. Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Programs reportedly never actually used the device in Afghanistan, but a spokeswoman says they are considering related technology.

Now, Los Angeles has been given a smaller, civilian version of the same device free. But the ACLU says that's a bad idea. "We're going to use people in the jails as guinea pigs for some mega arms builder to test their device," ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg says.

He sent a letter to L.A. Sheriff Lee Baca asking him to reconsider using what he says has the potential to be a torture device.... Eliasberg says some tests of the millimeter device have badly burned people with repeated zaps. And he notes that Los Angeles deputies have a documented history of abusing inmates. Eliasberg suggests a better solution would be to prevent the overcrowded conditions that trigger jail riots in the first place.

September 13, 2010 in Prisons and prisoners, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Monday, August 23, 2010

Texas counties having success with home-detention technocorrections alternative punishment

This local story from Texas provides another example of all the cost-saving innovations in corrections finding a measure of success in the Lone Star State.  The piece is headlined "Dallas County's alternative sentencing program lets low-level offenders do time at home," and here is how it starts:

What's the difference between a stark jail cell and the comforts of home? For a few lucky Dallas County criminals, the answer is nothing.  Under the county's alternative sentencing plan, certain low-level offenders discharge their sentences under ankle-monitored house arrest, giving them the opportunity to keep their jobs, eat home-cooked meals and enjoy the interaction of family and friends.

"I think the program is better than jail," said Arletha Baker, who was released from the program's restrictions recently. "You get to touch your family. ... I have a very helpful family."

Alternative sentencing is also helping Dallas County's bottom line. Since its inception Sept. 1, it has saved the county $366,016. And officials expect that figure to reach $400,000 by the initiative's first anniversary in two weeks. That's double the $200,000 budgeted by county commissioners last year to launch the program, which they approved after observing a similar program in Brazos County.

Designed to replace the old work-release program that allowed offenders to work during the day and then return to jail on nights and weekends, alternative sentencing is used for criminals with offenses ranging from misdemeanors such as hot-check writing, low-level theft and DWIs to state jail felonies that have been reduced to misdemeanors.

Notably, as the article details, this form of alternative sentencing incorporates technocorrections and it "is not without critics":

Kevin Brooks, chief of the felony trial bureau for the district attorney's office, said, "There are real concerns" with the program and that the DA's office does not support it. He said it does not help public safety and that participating offenders are "not being punished for the offense they're convicted of."

He said he would prefer a revamped work-release program in which offenders paid the full cost to the county. "Where's the punishment for your offense, [if they] have the creature comforts of home?" Brooks said.

But County Commissioner John Wiley Price, who heads the county's jail population committee, said "You can't lock up the world. At the end of the day, you've got to manage your resources." Offenders, who are called clients, pay about 90 percent or more of the cost for their monitoring equipment, as opposed to the $10 per day work-release offenders paid the county.

"The monitoring fees come out to a reasonable amount," said Rebekah Truxal, program manager for alternative sentencing.  She said the cost is $8 to $10 per day for most clients, plus the cost of keeping an active home phone during their sentence.  For DWI cases, judges can require additional monitoring that increases the cost.

The monitors are programmed to allow clients to travel to their jobs or school, if they are students, at certain times of day and then return directly home.  They are accurate to within three feet, officials say.

August 23, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Technocorrections, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Terrific piece in The Atlantic on "Prison Without Walls"

The September issue of The Atlantic magazine includes this terrific piece focused on technocorrections like GPS tracking under the headline "Prison Without Walls." The lengthy piece is a must-read and here is a long excerpt that highlights some reasons why I have been talking up the future of technocorrections for years:

GPS devices ... are looking like an appealing alternative to conventional incarceration, as it becomes ever clearer that, in the United States at least, traditional prison has become more or less synonymous with failed prison.  By almost any metric, our practice of locking large numbers of people behind bars has proved at best ineffective and at worst a national disgrace. According to a recent Pew report, 2.3 million Americans are currently incarcerated — enough people to fill the city of Houston.  Since 1983, the number of inmates has more than tripled and the total cost of corrections has jumped sixfold, from $10.4 billion to $68.7 billion.  In California, the cost per inmate has kept pace with the cost of an Ivy League education, at just shy of $50,000 a year.

This might make some sense if crime rates had also tripled.  But they haven’t: rather, even as crime has fallen, the sentences served by criminals have grown, thanks in large part to mandatory minimums and draconian three-strikes rules — politically popular measures that have shown little deterrent effect but have left the prison system overflowing with inmates.  The vogue for incarceration might also make sense if the prisons repaid society’s investment by releasing reformed inmates who behaved better than before they were locked up.  But that isn’t the case either: half of those released are back in prison within three years. Indeed, research by the economists Jesse Shapiro of the University of Chicago and M. Keith Chen of Yale indicates that the stated purpose of incarceration, which is to place prisoners under harsh conditions on the assumption that they will be “scared straight,” is actively counterproductive.  Such conditions — and U.S. prisons are astonishingly harsh, with as many as 20 percent of male inmates facing sexual assault — typically harden criminals, making them more violent and predatory.  Essentially, when we lock someone up today, we are agreeing to pay a large (and growing) sum of money merely to put off dealing with him until he is released in a few years, often as a greater menace to society than when he went in.

Devices such as the ExacuTrack, along with other advances in both the ways we monitor criminals and the ways we punish them for their transgressions, suggest a revolutionary possibility: that we might turn the conventional prison system inside out for a substantial number of inmates, doing away with the current, expensive array of guards and cells and fences, in favor of a regimen of close, constant surveillance on the outside and swift, certain punishment for any deviations from an established, legally unobjectionable routine.  The potential upside is enormous.  Not only might such a system save billions of dollars annually, it could theoretically produce far better outcomes, training convicts to become law-abiders rather than more-ruthless lawbreakers.  The ultimate result could be lower crime rates, at a reduced cost, and with considerably less inhumanity in the bargain.

Moreover, such a change would in fact be less radical than it might at first appear.  An underappreciated fact of our penitentiary system is that of all Americans “serving time” at any given moment, only a third are actually behind bars.  The rest — some 5 million of them — are circulating among the free on conditional supervised release either as parolees, who are freed from prison before their sentences conclude, or as probationers, who walk free in lieu of jail time.  These prisoners-on-the-outside have in fact outnumbered the incarcerated for decades. And recent innovations, both technological and procedural, could enable such programs to advance to a stage where they put the traditional model of incarceration to shame.

In a number of experimental cases, they already have.  Devices such as the one I wore on my leg already allow tens of thousands of convicts to walk the streets relatively freely, impeded only by the knowledge that if they loiter by a schoolyard, say, or near the house of the ex-girlfriend they threatened, or on a street corner known for its crack trade, the law will come to find them. Compared with incarceration, the cost of such surveillance is minuscule—mere dollars per day—and monitoring has few of the hardening effects of time behind bars.  Nor do all the innovations being developed depend on technology.  Similar efforts to control criminals in the wild are under way in pilot programs that demand adherence to onerous parole guidelines, such as frequent, random drug testing, and that provide for immediate punishment if the parolees fail. The result is the same: convicts who might once have been in prison now walk among us unrecognized—like pod people, or Canadians.

There are, of course, many thousands of dangerous felons who can’t be trusted on the loose. But if we extended this form of enhanced, supervised release even to just the nonviolent offenders currently behind bars, we would empty half our prison beds in one swoop....  [S]ome would offend again.  But then, so too do those convicts released at the end of their brutal, hardening sentences under our current system. And even accepting a certain failure rate, by nearly any measure such “prisons without bars” would represent a giant step forward for justice, criminal rehabilitation, and society.

August 18, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision, Scope of Imprisonment, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Sunday, August 15, 2010

"Electronic bracelets to track gun-toting Memphis juveniles"

The title of this post is the notable headline of this notable local article from Tennessee.  Here are the intriguing particulars of one of the the latest use of technocorrections (which is being funded by federal tax dollars):

Memphis police want to stop gun-toting teens in their tracks -- literally.  

Police Director Larry Godwin is teaming with Memphis Mayor A C Wharton to develop a pilot program that monitors the steps of troubled teens through advanced electronic tracking bracelets. It's part of a $2 million, federally funded program to curtail crime using tracking equipment that can pinpoint a detainee's exact location.....

Godwin ... and the mayor are teaming to develop a proposed pilot program, "Cease-Fire for Juveniles."  The initiative, modeled partly after a similar program in St. Louis, allows police and court officials to supervise the teen for one year through an electronic ankle bracelet....

Unlike some other tracking devices, the bracelets used in this program would keep a record of everywhere the detainee goes, transmitting the data in real time to a police department server, Memphis police Col. Jim Harvey said.

Using special software, police can build a virtual fence around a teen offender's home, with the computer monitoring if the teen is staying put during curfew.  If the teen leaves his yard, a police computer will automatically generate an alert.  With sex offenders, police can place a virtual fence around area schools and daycare centers.  If the offender crosses onto forbidden turf, police will get an alert.

Harvey, who is overseeing the logistics of the monitoring, said this program has the potential to drastically reduce the city's crime rate.  "If there's a burglar walking down the street and he sees a police officer, he's not going to break into that house or business," Harvey said. "Now, the way I look at it, he's going to be wearing a police officer on his leg."

In the program's first year, the department plans to track up to 1,000 juvenile and adult offenders in Shelby County and up to 500 in nearby urban areas tracked by federal programs -- Fayette, Tipton and Lauderdale counties and DeSoto County, Miss., and Crittenden County, Ark.

The juvenile program would be voluntary, so the teen and parents would have to agree to participate. If the minors stay out of trouble for one year, the initial gun-possession charge would be erased from their record.

Through the program, the parent would also have to allow random police searches of the teen's bedroom.  If the teen is caught with drugs or another gun, he or she would get kicked out of the program and would face the consequences of violating probation, police said.

Veteran defense attorney James Sanders said the program sounds promising, but he would first want to ensure the parent wouldn't be blamed if the search yielded a weapon or drugs in the teen's room....  The program would also require the minor to complete 40 hours of community service and attend training, which includes straight talk from a former gang member.

August 15, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offender Characteristics, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Monday, July 26, 2010

New York about to require ignition locks as mandated punishment for drunk driving

I am pleased to see this new New York Law Journal piece, headlined "Drunken Drivers in N.Y. Must Install Devices to Monitor Alcohol Use," reporting that the Empire State is about to mandate a seemingly effective form of technocorrections for persons convicted of a crime that leads to thousands of deaths every year. Here are some of the interesting details:

A new program will go into effect on Aug. 15 in New York that requires anyone convicted of drunken driving to install a device in their cars that will determine whether they are sober before the vehicle will start.  Roughly 25,000 people statewide are convicted each year on charges of drunken driving.

Under the new program, which was adopted as a part of "Leandra's Law," anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated must have the devices installed at their own expense and once a month report to a location where the data recorded by the machine can be analyzed to determine how often the driver exceeded blood alcohol limits.

With the device, known as an ignition interlock breathalyzer, installed, the drivers will have to pass a test to show they have less than one drink in their system before the car will start, and they must use a Breathalyzer at regular intervals to prove they are not drinking and driving.

The devices will not permit a car to start if the driver registers a blood alcohol level of .025 percent or higher. Drivers face criminal charges if their blood alcohol reading exceeds .08 percent....

Judge Judy Harris Kluger, chief of policy and planning for the court system, said that the courts are "well prepared" to meet the Aug. 15 startup date.  About 1,000 village and town court justices and employees of those courts have been trained on implementing the new law, she said. A similar program will be conducted through the Internet for all 1,300 state-funded judges on Aug. 3.

Kluger recognized that judges will have an "additional responsibility" in analyzing detailed financial statements from defendants to determine if they are eligible for a fee waiver, but added that the courts will not know the impact for several months....

Motorists convicted of drunken driving charges will have to pay up to $100 to have the devices installed and a monthly fee of between $70 and $100 depending upon which model and which installer they use.  The seven manufacturers approved by the Department of Probation, will bear the cost of providing the devices to convicted motorists who are unable to pay for them.

In any case where a motorist is convicted of driving while under the influence, judges must require the defendant use the device for at least six months.  The requirement can be imposed with a conditional discharge, most likely in the case of first offenders, or as a condition of probation.

Currently, probation is required in about 9,000 of the 25,000 drunken driving cases, with several hundred jailed and the balance fined, [according to Robert Maccarone, the director of the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives].  He added that he did not expect that figure to change after Aug. 15. Defendants who go to sentence would be required to install the devices once they have served their terms....

The seven manufacturers must contract with enough installers -- retailers of electronics and security systems -- so that no convicted motorist will have to travel more than 50 miles to have the device installed or to attend monthly compliance checkups.

Each of the manufacturers produces devices at varying levels of sophistication. In addition to the basic model, some have cameras to record who is taking the breathalyzer test and others have global positioning systems.

The requirement for the interlock ignition devices was enacted as a part of Leandra's law, which was adopted in response to the October 2009 death of Leandra Rosado, 11, who was thrown from a car being driven by a drunken driver.

I believe that New York is the largest state to create an ignition lock mandate for those convicted of drunk driving.  As detailed in some prior posts, there is (undisputed?) evidence that every state with serious ignition lock laws have experienced significant decreases in the number of drunken-driving accidents and deaths.  If a very politically prominent state like New York has such positive experiences with Leandra's law, it could prompt adoption of similar programs nationwide and perhaps significantly decrease the harmful scourge that is drunk driving.

Some related posts on sentencing drunk drivers and advocacy for ignition locks:

July 26, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offense Characteristics, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack

Monday, July 19, 2010

California struggling with new challenges posed by GPS technocorrections

Regular readers know that I view technocorrections like GPS tracking as a common punishment of the future, and that is one reason I find especially notable this local piece detailing California's problems with this form of technocorrections now.  The piece is headlined "Sex offenders unwatched as parole struggles with GPS system," and here are excerpts:

Two special reports by the state Office of the Inspector General found Corrections' GPS policies were confused at best and non-existent at worst.

The full technological abilities of the system aren't being used, agents and supervisors aren't properly trained and agents are so overloaded with GPS busy work they aren't able to do other vitally important checks in the field, according to the reports. Overall, the reports concluded, Corrections is not aggressively monitoring sex offenders and the public is being given a "false sense of security."...

"Parole agents are so busy tracking dots on a computer screen, they're not out making home visits, checking the guy's workplace, talking to family members," said Melinda Silva, president of the Parole Agents Association of California. "Agents are spending the bulk of their time running tracks including at home and on the weekends."

Jessica's Law, passed in 2006, started the ball rolling on lifetime GPS monitoring of sex offenders. Then the Garrido report added more responsibilities and the Gardner report still more.

California leads the nation in GPS monitored parolees -- 6,500 -- at a cost of $60 million a year. Depending on arrests, there are typically about 250 sex offender parolees on GPS in Kern County.

Silva said the state isn't taking into account how the program has increased agents' workload and whether the work is actually accomplishing what the public expects. "People believe the GPS means we know where they are 24/7 and we don't," Silva said. "We're paying millions for GPS and we're not getting much out of it because agents don't have time to do the work."

Now, she said, State Sen. George Runner, who authored Proposition 83 establishing Jessica's Law, has a bill involving Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites that she feared would add even more to agents' plates.

Not so, Runner said. His bill, SB 1204 which has passed the Senate and the Public Safety committee in the Assembly, would simply require that sex offenders register their online and e-mail addresses as well as their instant messaging user names just like they do their physical addresses.

Silva argued that if it becomes a crime for a sex offender not to register their electronic info, that makes it absolutely incumbent on the agent to check the sites. "Who enforces that if not us?" she asked. "It's ludicrous to say there's no extra work."

As for whether the GPS program has been a success, Runner said it's an evolving technology that should not be thought of as a cure-all. "It's just one tool," he said.

There have been successes and failures with GPS, he acknowledged. But he firmly believes the technology and its use will continue to improve. "That said, there have been problems with implementation." And he said he was "frustrated" with some of Corrections' responses to recommendations about how to do better.

Some related older posts on GPS tracking and related technocorrections:

July 19, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Sex Offender Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Thursday, July 01, 2010

"Sex offender faces prison for going to movie, authorities say"

The title of this post is the headline of this intriguing local Detroit story which highlights how GPS tracking can play a role in busting a sex offender for going to the wrong pop-culture event.  Here are the details:

A sex offender told to stay away from children is facing up to 15 years in prison for allegedly violating his probation.

Michael Keeler, 46, of Gregory appeared in Livingston Circuit Court today. Authorities say he went to MJR Theater in Brighton June 22 to see the blockbuster film "Toy Story 3," putting himself among children despite his probationary terms.

Livingston Judge Michael Hatty set bond at 10 percent of $10,000. A hearing is set for July 8.

Court records showed Keeler served one year in prison after pleading guilty to a charge of criminal sexual conduct, second degree, involving a child under age 13 in 2008.

His probation included lifetime of electronic monitoring and registry on the state's sex offender list. The judge said a GPS monitoring device confirmed his whereabouts on June 22.

July 1, 2010 in Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Sex Offender Sentencing, Technocorrections | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack