Robert Ferguson, a repeat offender, was sentenced to eight years for stealing a $3.99 bag of shredded cheese under the state’s three strikes law. Ferguson is no Jean Valjean — he has a criminal record going back 30 years. He was found to be bipolar by state psychologists.
Prosecutor Clinton Parish said Ferguson had spent 22 of the past 27 years behind bars. He could now be eligible for parole in three years.
Critics have cited his case as an example of sentencing that is out of control under the three strikes law. Notably, he was facing life in prison for the cheese crime if he had not been found bipolar.
For the full story, click here.
Recidivism is very high but it is worth giving people a shot at rehab so they can at least get the information. I am glad I had that chance. I have been sober for 26 years.
swarthmore mom:
I think the statistics show that those with a history of repeat offenses will continue to re-offend even with treatment at an unacceptable rate.
Here’s a abstract from a 2006 study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology:
“This study tested the conflicting positions which maintain that moderate drinking invariably and rapidly leads alcoholics to uncontrolled inebriacy and that alcoholics are capable of sustaining controlled drinking over long periods without special training. We obtained 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month control-over-drinking follow-up ratings on 42 treated alcoholics who had been identified as completely controlled drinkers. Between a fourth and a half were rated as abstinent or controlled drinkers at each follow-up, while 21% to 37% were categorized either as uncontrolled or institutionalized. No subject was completely controlled for more than two consecutive trimesters. However, only 19% reportedly regressed to completely uncontrolled consumption within 3 months of their first evaluations, which casts doubt on the contention that even limited drinking ordinarily is followed by rapid regression. At their final followups, 47% were rated as abstinent or controlled drinkers and only 36% as uncontrolled or institutionalized. The findings did not support well either the abstinence or the controlled drinking position.”
Similar problems for repeat offenders were found in a Vermont study:
“Equally important for understanding
recidivism, and of no surprise to the practicing
defense attorney or prosecutor, is
that driver record and criminal history are
both related to subsequent DUI behavior.
A number of studies have produced findings
that lend credence to a “general
deviancy” theory of DUI: a significant
proportion of DUI offenders tend to have
relatively extensive driving violation
and/or criminal violation records.
Previous findings suggest that, for a significant
proportion of DUI offenders,
drinking and driving is only one aspect of
other risky behaviors, such as alcoholism,
dangerous driving, and risk-taking.11
(HOW MANY COME BACK?
DUI OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN VERMONT
William Clements, Ph.D.)
I suspect drug abuse has similar numbers though I didn’t have the time to find those. The general deviance theory is basically my argument in this case.
Mespo It is not always clear but a person who is successfully treated for alcoholism will probably not continue getting arrested for drunk driving. A crack or meth addict who is rehabbed probably won’t continue to steal to feed their addictions.
When I read your comment, SM, I began thinking about the incarceration of the mentally ill and didn’t accurately address your point.
Mespo: (You’re right.) I had to look up “post hoc ergo propter hoc” — I wish that I had taken a greater interest in Latin, among other subjects.
Wikipedia:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. (end quote)
Swathmore mom:
“The majority of those in prison in the US have substance abuse problems.”
***********
True enough but the question becomes of one of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
True, true, true, Swarthmore mom. There’s a book — I read it several years ago… Wish I could remember the title…
TGFG: Crazy: A Father’s Search Through America’s Mental Health Madness
By Pete Earley
http://astore.amazon.com/namiorg-20/detail/0399153136
It’s well worth reading. (Early’s son is bipolar.)
““This is typical of the American Criminal Justice System. It is horrid, especially for the ones that themselves could be potential victims while incarcerated.”
**********
Given the size of our heterogeneous population, I will add Churchill’s pragmatic words, “except for all those others that have been tried.”
“Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay.”
~ Percy Bysshe Shelley
The majority of those in prison in the US have substance abuse problems. They are put in prison rather than some type of rehab.
Excellent post, Buddha.
I’ll add a favorite quote:
“It isn’t the rebels who cause the troubles of the world, it’s the troubles that cause the rebels.”
– Carl Oglesby (President of Students for a Democratic Society(SDS)1965 -’66)
I’m an unlikely “rebel”, but what I’m seeing will bring this country to it’s knees, if it isn’t exposed and stopped, IMHO.
“My Iron Garden: Florida Man Arrested After Demanding Driver’s License for His “Beautiful Face” Or Else”
This is the thread if you’re interested
BIL,
” The Japanese really try to avoid sending people to prison, preferring rehabilitation in a social milieu over a cell block.”
Not just the Japanese, but we Canadians as well. I posted earlier this week on another thread describing how the justice system in Ontario is now trying to manage criminals whose crimes( non- violent ) are a result of symtoms of mental illness.
I second anon nurse and would like to add this little bon mot.
The Japanese really try to avoid sending people to prison, preferring rehabilitation in a social milieu over a cell block.
It’s not because they don’t have criminals.
It’s because they realize that warehousing like minded criminals leads to one thing: prison being a school for criminals.
But in a system where some crimes are dismissed like torture by ‘officials’ while others receive overly harsh sentences for non-violent offenses like petty theft or possession only sends one message: the system is broken and corrupt.
Justice for all or justice for none.
Two-tiered criminal legal systems lead to revolution.
That’s not a threat either. Merely an observation of history.
While I don’t disagree with most of what’s been said here, we need to be certain, it seems, that we consider all the facts. This man was charged with “two counts of petty theft”, not just one. The fact that he took a woman’s wallet, as well, is not insignificant, and yet it is omitted in two of the three stories which I’ve read.
Source:
On Jan. 6, jurors convicted Ferguson of two counts of petty theft for snatching a woman’s wallet from the counter of a 7-Eleven store and for stuffing a bag of Tillamook shredded cheese worth $3.99 into his pants at Woodland’s Nugget Market. (from the Sacramento Bee)
The doughnut story is more representative, it would seem, of a system that is clearly out of control. In general, I do agree with Mike A that “the idea that one size fits corrupts the very idea of a justice system.”
To AY’s point, I’m hearing more about the Prison Guards Union and not all of it is good.
Mespo’s question is a good one: “Under what construct of compassion can we permit this man to exploit his future victims?” We’re told that when this man doesn’t take his meds, he becomes manic and steals. If this is strictly true, then treatment/rehab might the best option. It’s undoubtedly been tried — probably repeatedly — over the past thirty years.
I don’t have the answers, but I do see the problems. As AY concluded, and I’ll repeat it:
“This is typical of the American Criminal Justice System. It is horrid, especially for the ones that themselves could be potential victims while incarcerated.”
And where is the justice in a system that allows certain individuals to get away with torture and, in some cases, it would seem, murder.
“Robert Ferguson, a repeat offender, was sentenced to eight years for stealing a $3.99 bag of shredded cheese under the state’s three strikes law. Ferguson is no Jean Valjean — he has a criminal record going back 30 years.”
************
There is always tension in the system – are we punishing the man’s actions or his character with these repeat offender laws? In the pristine world of logic, we would separate the offenses and punish each according to its impact on society. Thus, Ferguson’s crime would merit no more than a fine or probation. However, there is substantial support for the proposition that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and society deserves a preventative remedy for one whose criminal history spans decades and for whom rehabilitation is a far distant possibility. Personally, I would err in favor of protecting society from one who has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted to obey society’s rules – even the venial ones. Under what construct of compassion can we permit this man to exploit his inevitable future victims?
Canadian Eh,
This is typical of the American Criminal Justice System. It is horrid, especially for the ones that themselves could be potential victims while incarcerated.
As I have stated it is one of retribution rather than rehabilitation. Take for instance a Drunk driving offense where thankfully no one is hurt, killed etc. Why not rehabilitation rather than incarceration. 5 years in some states for the first offense, this seems a little excessive to me.
AY,
Yes it certainly answers my question!!!! Wow that’s harsh!!! More harsh though, we pay $7.99 for a freaken bag of shredded cheese up here, and I live 20 minutes away from a chesse factory!!
George,
The Prison Guards Union wants job security. Three strikes and you are in for life. Hmm, Dr. Mengele I presume.
This is another disaster dictated by mandatory sentencing laws. The idea that one size fits corrupts the very idea of a justice system.
First, it sounds like this guy might need mental health assistance, not more incarceration.
Second, between the absurd three strikes law, the governor giving away state oil leases, and the public worker unions refusing any change to their benefits packages, is it any wonder why California is a state chronically on the brink of bankruptcy?
Here’s what Justice Kennedy said about the three strikes law last month: http://www.corrections.com/articles/23502
And here’s a good article on the problem itself: http://facts1.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=1244
Damn, his mental health issue kept him out of prison for life. That damn judge needs to go. He is too soft on crime. Well Canadian Eh, did this answer your question.
Stealing a Donut May Cost Man 30 Years in Prison
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/10/09/stealing-a-donut-may-cost-man-30-years-in-prison/