Work Release? For Child Molesters???!!!

[smcop]

I certainly appreciate your perspective, but there is no way I can believe that there is NO financial consideration for running our county involved here. I certainly hope it isn't the first consideration (I don't even think that it is) but it would be completely irresponsible for those in power in this county to completely disregard the fact that it takes bucks. I actually think considering the financial perspective is prudent. I realize nobody in their right mind should place financial consideration above a victim, nor do I suggest that our police officers or officers of the court do so. But it has to play some part. No doubt it is a difficult thing to balance.

Thanks for the job you do.

Your welcome.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but here is where your thinking is flawed. You keep saying the financial consideration is by the county. Well, neither the county, nor the sheriff's office has any say in authorizing work release. The judges do. If the judges, who are state employees, were considering how to make money for the county when they issued sentences, then wouldn't it be more profitable to add fines payable to the county and jail for their crimes. Surely not every criminal could pay, but many of them would if it was a condition of their probation, and then there would be a huge influx of dollars to the county coffers. But this doesn't happen because the judges are not considering cost to the sentences. The judges ethically would not be able to consider cost to a person’s sentence.

What you fail to or refuse to see is that the "county" plays no part in a person’s status when it comes to incarceration.

 

[inkah12102]

Your welcome.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but here is where your thinking is flawed. You keep saying the financial consideration is by the county. Well, neither the county, nor the sheriff's office has any say in authorizing work release. The judges do. If the judges, who are state employees, were considering how to make money for the county when they issued sentences, then wouldn't it be more profitable to add fines payable to the county and jail for their crimes. Surely not every criminal could pay, but many of them would if it was a condition of their probation, and then there would be a huge influx of dollars to the county coffers. But this doesn't happen because the judges are not considering cost to the sentences. The judges ethically would not be able to consider cost to a person’s sentence.

What you fail to or refuse to see is that the "county" plays no part in a person’s status when it comes to incarceration.

I realize that "the county" plays no part in sentencing -- at least not directly. Unless you are willing to consider that each lawyer has input when sentencing is considered -- and so do victim's, the offender and each's family members. Of course there are also often letters and recommendations from community members. Sure the judge has final say, but he/she has likely made a judgement based on information she has received from "the county" (both official and non-official representatives).

Also, I was under the impression that the detention center has the right to use its own discretion when it comes to actually allowing an inmate out on work release? Maybe you have better information about that...

Also, while I realize there may be ways to make "more" money for the country when it comes to offenders by way of instituting fines (you do realize that while fines may or may not have played a part in this case -- there are plenty of times where there are fines and restitution, etc??) that does not negate the fact that work release reimburses at least "some" of the county's cost for housing criminals.

 

[inkah12102]

I agree with much of what you've said here. Unfortunately, I was your average naive, unsuspecting, person who had faith in the judicial system when I walked into her courtroom. I was told "she is fair" by several different people who undoubtedly truly thought that she was. When I walked out of her courtroom, I was dumbfounded by what I saw and heard,...so I started researching the law, the system, and the local "legal scene". The more that I have learned, the more clear the picture has become. By all accounts, Abrams not only made a "legal" mistake in my case, but she also made a mockery of judicial ethics as well as condoning egregious unethical conduct by a local attorney. Her blatant disregard for the facts and law, her complacency with unethical conduct, and her obvious admiration of the good ole boys system, create a problem for anyone who conducts legal business in her courtroom.

This carries over to these very serious child sexual offender issues. Although I think that my particular case is very important to me, I am fully aware that it is absolutely nothing compared to the pain and suffering of those affected by these child sexual predators being let out on work release. Abrams, because of her marriage to a well respected appellate judge, is basically immune to any consequences for her "poor decisions". Other judges face the possibility of being overturned by the appellate courts in Annapolis or face sanctions for their conduct. If Abrams makes a mistake, or in my case knowingly omits "key evidence" from her factual findings, the next higher court is willing to not only look the other way, but will act as the "cleanup crew". The "cleanup crew", made up of Abrams and her husband's friends and colleagues, must believe that protecting the reputation and ego of their friends, supercedes the facts, the law, and the proper administration of justice. In my opinion, these percieved judicial powerhouses and scholars, are ethical, legal, and judicial weaklings. Judge Abrams obviously possesses a V.I.P. membership to this unethical judicial clique.

I believe that Judge Karen H. Abrams is brazen and reckless with regard to her judicial decisions, including those relating to work release for child molesters, because her "judicial reality" is materially warped by her judicial immunity.

I have read your other threads in regards to Abrams. It is clear you have a beef with her. Whether or not it is legit, I have no personal knowledge of, except from what you say. Obviously others have disagreed with you, both professionally and in these forums. I, personally have no opinion about the matter.

However, in this case, I am certain that judge Abrams made the best ruling possible with the information she had on this criminal at the time. There was no legitimate reason (except perhaps the claim by some that "these guys never change") to rule differently. I have not done the research, but smdcop claims other judges have made similar rulings in similar cases -- I believe that. This was only a bad decision in hindsight. Who knew?

The tendancy to find someone to blame is strong. I say we all need to look in the mirror, accept responsibility, make changes where we can and move on.

 

[smcop]

I realize that "the county" plays no part in sentencing -- at least not directly. Unless you are willing to consider that each lawyer has input when sentencing is considered -- and so do victim's, the offender and each's family members. Of course there are also often letters and recommendations from community members. Sure the judge has final say, but he/she has likely made a judgement based on information she has received from "the county" (both official and non-official representatives).

that does not negate the fact that work release reimburses at least "some" of the county's cost for housing criminals.

You have gone way beyond what was originally said. Originally it was insinuated that work release was done as a money making scheme for the county. Sure the money received from work release inmates helps with "some" of the cost of housing these inmates, but in no way does it make a profit for the county.

Your logic as to who the "county" is in your first paragraph is just well, not to be rude, but silly. By this logic, YOU living in the county would be responsible for these people being out on work release!

No County official has an input into the status of these offenders. And I might point out, that unless there can be a specific incident other than the crime these people are convicted of, no the sheriff's office does not have the authority to change a judges order to release someone on work release.

 

[inkah12102]

You have gone way beyond what was originally said. Originally it was insinuated that work release was done as a money making scheme for the county. Sure the money received from work release inmates helps with "some" of the cost of housing these inmates, but in no way does it make a profit for the county.

Your logic as to who the "county" is in your first paragraph is just well, not to be rude, but silly. By this logic, YOU living in the county would be responsible for these people being out on work release!

No County official has an input into the status of these offenders. And I might point out, that unless there can be a specific incident other than the crime these people are convicted of, no the sheriff's office does not have the authority to change a judges order to release someone on work release.

I am not sure if you are referring to me when it comes to the "insinuation" you mention, but I certainly never meant to insinuate that work release is only granted because it financially profits the county. When I say the judge might consider the financial aspect of things, it absolutely does not mean I am accusing her of being involved in some "money making scheme" (even if perhaps renfred might like it to be so .

My whole intent in posting here in the first place was to point out that it would not be entirely prudent to place the entire blame for this fiasco on the judge in the case. In fact, I absolutely do believe there is a whole slew of people and groups of people in this situation throughout the county and beyond who need to "look in the mirror". Ultimately I don't mean to blame anyone but the offender. Now if all we do is look at "woulda shoulda couldas" a whole lot of people could probably have done a whole lot of things differently. But they didn't. I think I said it before, WHO KNEW?! THAT is what I meant to say. THAT is my point. The fact that you took a particular sensitivity to a particular point within the point....well, sorry.

I am absolutely certain you know, as a police officer, that judges often consider input from a variety of sources when making a judgement and especially when handing down a sentence. "The community" abolutely has a say quite often in sentencing -- and it did in this case.

As for the sheriff's office changing a judges order, I don't think that was my question -- I meant to say that I thought the detention center had the final say as to whether or not a person is actually sent out for work release. I could be wrong, but that was my impression.

 

[smcop]

I am not sure if you are referring to me when it comes to the "insinuation" you mention,

No, I am not.

When I say the judge might consider the financial aspect of things, it absolutely does not mean I am accusing her of being involved in some "money making scheme" (even if perhaps renfred might like it to be so .

The judge doesn't consider the financial ramifications of their sentence. This is what this is about. You have gone from the "County" making these decisions to the "county" influencing the judge. Judges have fifteen year terms so they aren't influenced by outside people. They take into consideration the pre-sentencing investigation, the nature of the offense, and the victim's impact. I know this because I have sat through dozens if not hundreds of sentencings. What is your experience?

My whole intent in posting here in the first place was to point out that it would not be entirely prudent to place the entire blame for this fiasco on the judge in the case.

They are the decision makers.

In fact, I absolutely do believe there is a whole slew of people and groups of people in this situation throughout the county and beyond who need to "look in the mirror".

Who?

Ultimately I don't mean to blame anyone but the offender. Now if all we do is look at "woulda shoulda couldas" a whole lot of people could probably have done a whole lot of things differently. But they didn't.

Who?

I think I said it before, WHO KNEW?!

While past behavior can't predict future behavior it should be a good guide.

THAT is what I meant to say. THAT is my point. The fact that you took a particular sensitivity to a particular point within the point....well, sorry.

I'm not sensitive, but your speaking about things of which you seem to have no credible knowledge.

I am absolutely certain you know, as a police officer, that judges often consider input from a variety of sources when making a judgement and especially when handing down a sentence. "The community" abolutely has a say quite often in sentencing -- and it did in this case.

Clearly define how?

I meant to say that I thought the detention center had the final say as to whether or not a person is actually sent out for work release. I could be wrong, but that was my impression.

You are wrong.