I am rather perplexed by a ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman to order not just four more years of community service for filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza but continuation of psychological counseling despite the countervailing findings of two experts in the case. Judge Berman was on solid ground in much of his opinion on the conditions of the prior sentencing order. While tough, the defense was trying to curtail key aspects of the order. However, the counseling component does concern me.
D’Souza’s pleaded guilty to a single count of making illegal contributions in the name of others as part of the campaign of Wendy Long for New York Senate. He made $20,000 in illegal contributions. That is no minor infraction, but many questioned the decision of the Justice Department to seek multiple felonies and jail time. His case was denounced by various people as reflecting a selective prosecution of a conservative write and critic of the Obama Administration. Berman rejected the demand for jail time but did impose five years probation, eight months in a halfway house and a $30,000 fine as well as requiring that D’Souza perform eight hours of community service each week during his probation and must undergo therapy on a weekly basis.
This hearing was meant to clarify aspects of his sentence last year and much of the order would not be viewed as particularly controversial. D’Souza was seeking to limit the time of the community service by reference to his home confinement period. Berman balked and said that he said the two periods as distinct — a position that courts would likely take in similar cases.
Berman not surprisingly continued the community service for four more years. However, it is the counseling that most surprised me. While some sites have clearly relished the denial of relief, even referring to D’Souza as a “conservative clown.” His political views should not factor into these cases.
D’Souza’s counsel submitted evidence that the court-ordered psychiatrist found no indication of depression or reason for medication. His own retained psychologist provided a written statement concluding there was no need to continue the consultation. However, Judge Berman simply disagreed and said that he thinks more counseling will help while noting that this is not punishment: “I only insisted on psychological counseling as part of Mr. D’Souza’s sentence because I wanted to be helpful. I am requiring Mr. D’Souza to see a new psychological counselor and to continue the weekly psychological consultation not as part of his punishment or to be retributive.” I am concerned with a judge exercising such power “to be helpful” when there is not an independent recommendation for such counseling or a desire by the individual for such counseling.
Moreover, I am not comfortable with Judge Berman’s reference to his own expertise in the area. The court insisted “I’m not singling out Mr. D’Souza to pick on him. A requirement for psychological counseling often comes up in my hearings in cases where I find it hard to understand why someone did what they did.” I fail to see why this conduct is so mystifying. Stupid, yes, but the motivation was obvious. He sought to circumvent limitations on campaign financing laws. That was justifiably punished but it is not like he was found with severed heads in a duffle bag. Judge Berman noted that the court-appointed psychologist called D’Souza “arrogant” and “intolerant of others’ feelings.” However, that description would fit many successful people, including many in Washington and even a few on the bench.
Judge Berman then added: “You have to understand, I have a background in social work with a psychology major. I’m sensitive to mental health issues in the criminal cases I hear, and I do not want to end psychological counseling at this time in Mr. D’Souza’s case.” I have little question that Judge Berman has such a background. Indeed, he has a remarkable background and proven intellectual prowess. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 1964 and his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1967. He also received a Master of Social Work from Fordham University in 1996. He had a successful legal career and served as an executive assistant to United States Senator Jacob Javits in 1974. He was later named Executive Director of the New York State Alliance to Save Energy and was then appointed General Counsel and Executive Vice President of the Warner Cable Corporation. He has been a judge on various levels and is distinguished in the depth and scope of his published opinions.
However, while judges often bring their experience and knowledge to cases, it is a bit more problematic when the court effectively places his own experience as a type of third expert witness on an issue like psychological counseling. It is akin to a former police officer invoking his own forensic analysis to overrule or amplify the conclusions of an expert witness. I also simply do not see the record for continuing this element of the order. The original sentence for D’Souza was quite harsh and he has fulfilled those conditions without incident from what I can see. He has also continued as a successful writer and speaker. Even if the court believes that community service must continue, I do not see the basis for compelled psychological counseling. The court is not in the business of making “better people” in this way. The court acknowledged that this is not part of the punishment and that he was only ordering the counseling on his hunch that D’Souza could benefit from such counseling. At this point however I think that decision should rest with D’Souza. I do not know D’Souza and I have not read his work. However, I fail to see a record to support this part of the order.
What do you think?
Smiley face fascism.
Conform or be cast out, sweetie.
We’re from the government and we’re here to help.
Have a Nice Day.
I can’t wait for the gay marriage show trials against the recalcitrant churches *spit*>.
We can start off with jailing the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor if they dare defy the 10th Circuit which has ordered them to give up their silly little religious views and COMPLY with the Obamacre contraception mandate.
I suggest the judges make the nuns wear dunce caps.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/63441000/jpg/_63441465_li660825a(2).jpg
Bit by bit our freedoms are being chipped away. This is frightening. Re-education camps for the “wrong thinkers”.
Be afraid. YOU could be next on the list for anything that those in charge deem to be wrongthink.
Thoughtcrime is prima facie evidence of mental illness, so the judge should be awarded the Medal of Honor.
Until D’Souza admits that 2 + 2 = 5, he should be in jail.
I never liked his stupid music anyway, especially the execrable “Stars and Stripes Forever”, celebrating the racist US flag.
The judge is acting well out of his context. The reasons for supposedly impartial experts is to surface the clinical condition and analyze it’s potential. The judge is not an expert witness. Counseling is not his call, unless so recommended by an ‘expert’.
If this is allowed to stand it will set a precedent which will further erode the value of the judiciary. Also, why aren’t a lot of fat cats doing hundreds of years of counseling and probation, and community service, etc? This guy is a piker compared to most.
This sort of thing goes on from both directions but it is all Obama’s fault, you know.
If this had been David Brooks, I could see the mandated counseling! 🙂
Seriously, this is wrong. Why not just call up some of the many psychologists that helped their fellow torturers plan the “treatment” for Obama’s prisoners in Gitmo? Hell, why not get some of Obama’s torture doctor’s to force feed the guy?
This is a very scar ruling, both the first in ordering and now in reordering it. This is exactly the kind of mind control that the USG used to scare US citizens with about the Soviet Union. If this judge is so school in psychology, then he would understand that forcing anyone into mandatory counseling should have a very high bar of danger to self and others.
This nation is so freakin’ creepy.
The judge is old, needs counseling, needs time off for good behavior such as in a nursing home and needs to be removed from the bench. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Buck v. Bell back in 1927: “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
It’s about time someone got around to using Psychiatry against political enemies.
It is a well-known tactic and works wonderfully ‘pour encourager les autres.’
I strongly advise Democrat hearings at both State and Congressional levels asking:
“Are you now or have you ever been a Christian?
Are you now or have you ever been a conservative?”
Political dissent is the highest form of insanity.
The defendant should be grateful the judge didn’t study proctology or stay @ a Holiday Inn Express the night prior to sentencing. Orwell is the Nostradamus of our time vis a vis liberals.
At Dave: so I am religious…does that make me nuts? I hardly think so. Obama and the Dimocrats are the nutty ones. O and the Dem. judge are just angry that D’Souza spoke some truth about the big O.
Political retribution, plane and simple. D’Souza is a conservative political commentator, speaker and TV producer. He is viewed as a danger to liberals. Using the courts, the IRS or any medium available to silence conservatives is not new.
Josef Stalin, please call your office.
I see a couple of problems. 1) the judge is over-reaching. Woody Allen has been in psycho-analysis his whole live and he still can’t talk to strangers. This is the old Soviet Union approach to dissidents. 2) I think the judge will not be satisfied until Dinesh is a Democrat.
I’m as convinced as anyone can be that the punishment here is commensurate with the offence, I do now feel that the continuation of mandated counselling is, at least, puzzling. I had not heard, in earlier reports, that two experts had recommended that counselling be discontinued. Once again I learn that reporting propagated through online echo chambers miss nuance and ignore salient facts, so a broad sampling of online sources is the best policy.
He’s religious, which alone implies mental problems.
Speaking of which, it’s highly enjoyable watching Hitchens relentlessly crush him during their past debates.
We picked up on this story at Pansies, too. Very troubling. Also see this:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/governments-indefinitely-detaining-citizens-in-psychiatric-wards-without-due-process-of-law.html
Very Stalinesque.
What is the issue the counseling is supposed to address? What is the outcome the court believes would be appropriate. Aside form duration, the time in counseling, how can D’Souze know if he is meeting the requirements of the court.
I understand judges have broad discretion. However, for the judge impose conditions beyond sentencing guidelines that seem divorced from any issue in the case, and from a stated, desired outcome suggest the sentence is idiosyncratic and punitive.
So we are going to “reeducation” for those who do not think the way the government wants us to. That sounds like the Soviet Union in the 60’s doesn’t it?
I’m thinking it sounds a bit like Clock Work Orange..we will deprogrammed you.
I don’t agree with the defendants’ right wing views but the judge has not right to view those views as an element of his sentencing order. Being right wing doesn’t make you crazy it just makes you wrong.:) No need for counseling or reprogramming.
I’m thinking the reply I would leave about Dinesh is not suitable for the internet.