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?
Within a prisoner, not with in prisoner.
Well, Liberals can always be relied on to agree with stuff like this. Chief Consort is right. Let’s see, Trump is crazy, Cruz is crazy, Palin is crazy, etc.etc. etc. It just becomes unabashed name calling in the place of argument.
But somehow, 911 Truthers aren’t crazy, the open borders folks aren’t crazy. The people digging up confederate generals aren’t crazy. Even though no one can explain how letting in millions of unskilled low wage type workers helps a country that already has millions of unemployed workers. Anyway, there is a good story at Pansies For Plato about this. The typical Liberal idiotic revelry, but there are some really kewl pictures!
https://pansiesforplato.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/its-about-damn-time-dinesh-dsouza-ordered-to-see-shrink/
https://pansiesforplato.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/gungadinjaffe.jpg
Brain Damage??? No, It’s Just A Turban!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I. Annie
As a medical professional, you do realize that criminals often hide drugs up their backsides, don’t you? I’m also sure that you realize that if those materials– used to contain the drugs– rupture, allowing the drugs to enter into the bloodstream, you are likely going to have a dead prisoner on your hands? Would you rather have a dead body? Would you be against an X-ray, which is not as intrusive as a colonoscopy, which would, potentially, save a life by alerting the authorities of a highly toxic substance hidden with in prisoner?
Some electro shock therapy and sessions with nurse Ratched will fix Dinesh’s attitude.
Annie,
This isn’t a left or right issue, just as you stated in your first post. Calling people “mentally ill” who are targets of the powerful, is a tactic that has been time tested over centuries. It did not begin with the US. It will not end with the US. Regimes considered liberal engage in the tactic. Regimes considered conservative engage in this tactic.
It is also true that “imposed care” for people who piss off the powerful is used as a form of punishment. That is why you see the use of medical “care” in violation of all ethical and legal standards in use at Gitmo. This took place under a self styled conservative, Bush and it is still taking place under a self styled liberal, Obama.
D’Souza is an a-hole. He did the crime, he should do the time. But it is instructive to ask why he got it for doing the same crime as most large donors of wealthy candidates (either so called right and left). These other people aren’t arrested or jailed. Why not? My guess is Sousa simply pissed off the wrong elites and they went for him. D’Souze was a once favored lackey but fell from grace. Perhaps all the elite’s lackeys should take note.
Be that as it may, I don’t understand how anyone could condone this judge’s behavior. This is an abuse of the powerful. It will be used against political enemies both rich and poor. It is already in use in Gitmo and there’s always the example of Homan Square and Occupy. The elites are dangerous, well connected and able to do just about anything they want. People who are liberal or conservative should condemn this and get moving to protest it.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/justice/new-mexico-search-settlement/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/14/new-mexico-man-given-forced-colonoscopy-by-cops-wins-16-million-settlement
“Eckert’s lawsuit also named two doctors, the medical center and Deputy District Attorney Daniel Dougherty, who helped acquire the search warrant. Those defendants have not settled.”
At I. Annie: IF you as a liberal voted for Obama, then you are the one who is nuts. Even my dogs can figure out that the man is evil and destroying this country. He is attacking D’Souza for his honest appraisal of Obama’s tactics, plain and simple….
Good point Bruce,
Compelling medical or psychological treatment. Profeesor Turley had a series of articles a while back about cops or State Troopers stopping people and taking them to a hospital and forcing them to undergo a colonoscopy to search for drugs. I recall that the victim sued the doctors and the hospital as well as the State. Ethical doctors should be refusing to do such procedures based on some Judge ordering it.
Inga – if I read thing correctly, the judge was unhappy with what he heard from the first two judges and wanted him treated by a third psychologist. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It is unethical for a psychologist to provide services that are not clinically indicated. Period.
American Psychological Association. Ethics Code….
10.10 Terminating Therapy
(a) Psychologists terminate therapy when it becomes reasonably clear that the client/patient no longer needs the service, is not likely to benefit, or is being harmed by continued service.
(b) Psychologists may terminate therapy when threatened or otherwise endangered by the client/patient or another person with whom the client/patient has a relationship.
(c) Except where precluded by the actions of clients/patients or third-party payors, prior to termination psychologists provide pretermination counseling and suggest alternative service providers as appropriate.
Compelling therapists to behave outside their respective ethics codes in order to comply with legal or administrative mandates has caused the current problems with APA and the issue of “enhanced interrogations.” I would think that any therapist who would provide services to him would be subject to disciplinary actions. This judge is way out of line. We are surrounded by the brain police.
And Pogo, I wouldn’t put it past you to recommend a ‘Pray Away the Gay’ therapy for young gay folks. We see that you conservatives have great difficulty accepting those who are different than the cisgender model. It’s different when conservatives engage in this though, of course, because….um…. Because….they are hypocrites.
Pogo, one can depend on you to go on and on and on about liberalism causing all the world’s ills. Actually that’s kind of nutty….. LOL. But that’s OK I won’t go so far as to suggest you need therapy. 😆
Narcissism IS a mental disorder, but there are many narcissists who live in the society without requiring psychological intervention. As old nurse indicated, mandated therapy for narcissism, doubtful. That’s not something that principled fair minded people something should agree with. This Judge deserves some push back.
“As a modern liberal, I say such tactics are wrong ”
Inga, as a modern liberal you will fall in line when needed, rejoicing over the use of psychiatry for political purposes in the future, so I have no worries about you.
We are indeed aware how quickly and fully you fell in line with the stormtrooper tactics when “investigating Walker’s “crimes.”
You’re dependable that way.
“But therapy mandated by a judge to cure him of his narcissism?? – doubtful.”
Old nurse, you are missing the point.
He is not being sent to psychiatry for treatment.
Ha ha ha. That is too funny.
He is being sent to psychiatry for punishment.
Shame and blame.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.
Declare an unperson.
Now D’Souza is “crazy.” The judge said so.
As such, he can be disregarded without concern.
Everything he says now is counterattacked with Oh, but he’s crazy..
Damn that Michael Savage, he stole the idea from Alinsky! Alinsky stole it from Mao! Mao stole it from the Soviets! OK, that’s fair, now that we have the issue of the origin all ironed out, tell me why right wingers also use this method? I thought they would be above such tactics. Why do they emulate Alinsky, Mao, and the Soviets? As a modern liberal, I say such tactics are wrong and most people of any political affiliation would think so. People think differently, have different world views and political philosophies, that doesn’t make them mentally deranged. So Pogo ( your new name is too long), when your fellow conservatives use this tactic in future, I’m sure you will correct them and tell them to stop using such methods to discredit their political opposites.
Inga – I do not remember any Republicans sentencing defendants to counseling for 5 years.
He has a sense of entitlement and a belief that the law doesn’t apply to him. If, and only if, he were really interested in exploring the roots of this and subsequently changing his behavior, therapy could certainly help. But therapy mandated by a judge to cure him of his narcissism?? – doubtful.
4. “One of the countries where systematic political abuse of psychiatry seemed to have taken place was Romania; in 1997, IAPUP organized an investigative committee to research what actually happened and came to the conclusion that several hundred people had been victims of systematic abuse.6 Like in the Soviet Union, on the eve of Communist festivities, potential “troublemakers” were delivered to psychiatric hospitals by busloads and released when the festivities had passed.”
5. “The only country that seems to abuse psychiatry for political purposes in a systematic manner is the People’s Republic of China, and in spite of international criticism, this appears to be continuing. The abuses there seem to be even more extensive than in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s and involve the incarceration of followers of the Falun Gong movement, trade union activists, human rights workers and “petitioners”, and people complaining against injustices by local authorities.”
Indeed, our Great Victories against those who are Insane By Definition (i.e., because they dissent) must not be ignored, much less disowned.
Be proud of your heritage, Inga.
Your compliance is, er, requested, IYKWIMAITYD.
I suppose the difference is that Unions do not reimburse their members for their forced political donations.
So a judge can be “helpful” and require someone to have psychological counseling when no expert recommends it? For a judge to force someone into counseling like this is plainly an abuse of power and may be political.
I believe the law should apply equally to everyone. I do not have any problem with Mr D’Souza’s conviction on using straw donors. I have a problem that this law is not typically applied, the crime is widespread, and the punishment was excessive compared with similar convictions.
I think this case needs to be thoroughly investigated to determine if the judge’s politics impacted his ruling. If so, that would be a flagrant abuse of the judicial system.
What I’ve always found puzzling is why what D’Souza did landed him in jail, but it’s OK if Unions force their members to make political donations against their will. Campaign finance laws are broken all the time. It’s a scandal. And yet most people are not even charged, let alone convicted. And I’ve never heard of anyone receiving mandating psychological counseling for breaking them.
I am concerned at the persistent use of government to punish political dissenters, such as the IRS and the NSA. This seems to fit that theme.
Politics needs to be removed from the application of law, which should be equal for everyone, with similar sentencing structures.
“I’d suggest they give recognition to this Michael Savage guy for inventing the idea first, …He was the first to paint the other side as mentally deranged”
Heavens no.
No, no, no.
I see again your use of the deflection tool, tu quoque, one of your favorites.
But the Great and Glorious Left must not cede credit for one of its best inventions.
#1 Alinsky, 1971: “RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
#2 The Soviet Psikhushka (психушка; psychiatric hospital) were in use by the end of the 1940s.
“The KGB used its forensic psychiatric institutions to brand,arbitrarily and for political reasons, large numbers of political dissidents as suffering from “schizophrenia” and “paranoid psychosis,” and then incarcerated them for long periods in “special psychiatric hospitals.” In 1976, the Soviet Union was severely censured on this account by psychiatrists from all over the world at a conference in Hawaii of the World Psychiatric Association”
That last bit is HILARIOUS. Censured!
How many divisions does the World Psychiatric Association have?
#3 Mao, Chinese Cultural Revolution, 1960s-70s:
(a) “many genuinely mentally ill people, in particular those whose symptoms had included pseudopolitical “ravings” against Mao, were dragged out of mental hospitals by the Red Guards and coerced or beaten into “confessing” that they had been “sane” all along. They were
then officially reclassified as counterrevolutionariesand either sent to prison or shot.”
(b) “many genuine political activists caught on the wrong side of the complex Maoist factional struggles of that period were sent to police-run warehouses for the criminally insane. (This represents the more familiar pattern of “hyperdiagnosis”
that was so characteristic of Soviet-style political psychiatry.)
Most surprising of all, however, given that many regular mental hospitals in China had virtually ceased to function by the late 1960s, is that in the forensic domain, the psychiatric evaluation of criminal detainees apparently continued much as before—albeit with ethically catastrophic results.
As another of China’s top forensic psychiatrists Zheng Zhanpei wrote in 1988:
Political cases: These are very seldom mentioned in the literature of other countries. According to a survey done by this author of forensic psychiatric appraisal cases carried out at the Shanghai Municipal Mental Health Center over the period 1970 to 71, however, political cases accounted for 72.9 percent of the total.”“