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?
We’ve got combat veterans committing suicide because they are not receiving needed psychiatric care and this judge demands mental health resources be used in this way. Perhaps this judge would benefit from some community service himself and volunteer his ‘extensive’ expertise at the nearest VA hospital.
Maybe the Judge read Savage’s book and took his message to heart, who knows?
Michael Savage a far right wing radio hate talker wrote a book titled “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. I’d say before any right wingers here point the finger at liberals, I’d suggest they give recognition to this Michael Savage guy for inventing the idea first, or else they would appear to be hypocritical. He was the first to paint the other side as mentally deranged and since then, 2005, we’ve heard the slur towards liberals many times, even here on RIL comments sections.
mickey
I am somewhat baffled by your remarks, given your alleged experience on the bench and your extensive time working in the legal system. What part of the above-referenced article states that D’Souza still does not comprehend the illegality or the deceptive nature of his conduct? Unless you are aware of other facts, not contained in JT’s article, that’s a pretty big jump to make. Are you basing that upon the court-appointed psychologist’s opinion that D’Souza was deemed to be arrogant? Even if that characterization is true, that is not synonymous with failing to appreciate the illegality or deceptive nature of one’s acts. I wish I had a dime for every arrogant client that I have represented. Better yet, I wish I had a dime for every arrogant attorney and judge that I have encountered in my practice. That’s where I would clean up.
Dissent alone is sufficient cause for involuntary therapy.
http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2012/06/images/imhl2b-1206.jpg
I recommend President Hillary to bone up on this, using this spectacular how-to manual:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51r4PbABz-L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
I think most people of all political philosophies see a problem with this. To compel him into more therapy because the Judge has a problem understanding his thinking is not cause for involuntary therapy.
I think if Obama can commute the sentences of major drug felons, he can commute the sentence of D’Souza.
I think Professor Turley is spot on and has seen how the Democrats have gone to the dark side since 2012. The things they do in the name of perceived Liberal injustice is quite telling. Heil, mein Fuher Burman!
“it is clear that D’Souza still has no conception of why what he did was not just illegal but plain wrong and deceptive …”
Mickey,
When in those 18 years on the bench or 20 years as a litigator did you train to read the minds of defendants? I’m truly curious to know how you are “clear” on what’s in Dinesh D’Souza’s mind.
Beldar – “Poop studies” is pronounced ‘Polly-sigh’
Maybe down the road the judge wants to read what the psychologists and so called therapists have to say about the defendant.
I do not mean to offend anyone on the blog but the notion of “majoring” in psychology boggles my mind. Why don’t American universities have “majors’ in poop studies? Might as well.
Good answer, Mickey.
makes it all seem normal, like using Psychiatry here is not just apolitical but necessary for his own good
Thank you for your efforts to the Cause.
It has been recorded, and your superiors are pleased.
Having spent 18 years on the bench besides 20 some as a litigator, this neither concerns nor surprises me because it is clear that D’Souza still has no conception of why what he did was not just illegal but plain wrong and deceptive … and completely at odds with honest civic conduct, which is what we need to have for honest debate in a self-governing society (whether of the Right or the Left, liberal, conservative or in-between.
mickey – so all white-collar criminal should have 5 years of force counseling?
You will always have the freedom of Correct Thought, so do not despair.
Remember, you do not have to fall in love with the Left, you just have to fall in line.
@tofubamboo
The interesting thing about the Left is no matter how much you think you can parody its excesses, those parodies eventually come true.
As a result, one can reliably read my posts as prophecy.
That is why I am the Chief Consort.
What’s wrong? He couldn’t ship him off to camp in Siberia?
Talk about right of conscience being eroded. When we as a nation begin denying the right to “think” differently then no one is safe. Disagree as we will on the many issues this country faces but everyone should shudder at the prospect they could be next.
At Chief Consort: Once again, I ask if you are plying us with sarcasm. If you are serious, buddy, wow, can’t ever read your comments again. Ever…. and at Justice Holmes, doesn’t being left wing make you crazy? You believe Obama???? If so, yikes…..
“despite the countervailing findings of two experts in the case”
Won’t there always be countervailing finding of two experts – provided the experts are being paid by opposing counsel of course.
“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.”
Judge Berman found it hard to understand why D’Souza did what he did?
I agree with Prof. Turley, and I think it fitting that Judge Berman use his own rationale to re-enter therapy himself immediately.