One of the three or four students whom I feel has great potential got into trouble a few days ago. As I reported in another blog entry, he was being held in Juvenile Hall and had a hearing yesterday, the 18th of July. This is, in my opinion, a good kid who has followed some peers down the wrong road. Make no mistake about it. I regard this kid as being very intelligent, respectful, and well-mannered.
He was asked to drive a car, and it turned out that the car was stolen. When the police started chasing it, he panicked, tried to escape by driving away, and bashed a few cars before he was finally brought into custody. No one was hurt.
He had about six people come to support him, including his mother, a fellow who has been his mentor for a few years, myself, a brother, and several other people whose exact relationship to him I was not clearly told. Three of us were allowed into the courtroom -- his mother, his mentor, and myself.
The kid was brought in wearing handcuffs behind his back. He is dark-skinned and normally wears his hair in dreds that hang down almost to shoulder length. Before the hearing, he hgad done something to the dreds so they were gathered tightly around his head and didn't look as much as usual like dreds.
Three people spoke: the judge, the kid's lawyer, and the prosecution. The choice seemed to be that either he should go into custody at the California Youth Authority for about 18 months or that he should be released with an electronic minitoring bracelet around his ankle.
The young man pled guilty to several of the counts and several others were dismissed by the judge. The prosecutor wanted to have him sent away to CYA. As I had written in a letter that was presented with others in the lawyer's attempt to ameliorate the sentence, incarceration in California costs the taxpayers between $30,000 and $40,000 and this doesn't seem a wise expenditure when other less expensive alternatives are available. And it is also true that if conditions are set for him to be released on probation and remain at home instead, if he gets out of line, then he could have his probation revoked and be sent to CYA.
The electronic monitoring system has become very accurate and sophisticated. It uses a global positioning system that can pinpoint a person's location precisely. The kid, if he is put on this, would have a precise schedule -- on his way to school at 7 a.m., at school by 8 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., possible remaining at school for football practice until a certain time, then back onto the bus to go home by a certain time, and then at home until the next morning.
In a discussion with his mentor, who is also African-American and, I think, a really good person for this kid to associate with, we both felt that the kid should be on a schedule that keeps him so busy he hasn't time for anything else. I had suggested that once or twice a week I would be willing to meet with the kid at school at the end of the normal school day, and go over his school work with him. The library remains open an extra hour-and-a-half, and since the amount of home work the kids are given is, in my opinion, pathetically small, he could use this time and effort to advance intellectually beyond what he would normally be able to do without an enriched program.
Now, lest you think I am some kind of knee-jerk bleeding heart who believes that no poor Black man belongs in prison, let me fill you in on my background. I worked for a number of years as a volunteer with the county probation department, helping newly released inmates find jobs and otherwise get their lives together.
I also worked for about half a year in Juvenile Hall until two things simultaneously happened: 1) It became overwhelmingly clear to me that the people running juvenile hall really didn't want the kids helped. They wanted them stored, like boxes on shelves; and 2) I was told that I needed to start taking criminology courses to continue working. Since I was there because I felt kids should be helped, I resigned.
And I also worked from the outside with a number of prison inmates who were systematically being denied parole by the California Parole Board by proving that the Parole Board members were not doing the job they were legislatively-mandated to do, but were working instead for the Governor (who appointed them to cushy 100,000+/year jobs that they wanted to keep) so that he would never be embarassed by being charged as being soft on crime if a parolee went back into the world and committed another crime. My proof actually got a few people out !
I mention these things so that you don't think I was just sympathetic to this kid no matter who he was or what he did. I know there are people who belong in prison and who should never get out. I have met some face-to-face.
The judge in my student's case veered strongly toward the electronic monitoring alternative, for which we are all thankful. Formal sentencing will take place on the 27th of August, but monitoring is what we are all expecting it to be.
What do you think ? Is this the right altrernative ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
your blog is interesting, and you bring up a lot of valid points in this post in particular. i work in and around the law and intend to continue to do so as i further my education. it's difficult to say whether or not i agree with the judge's ruling on the case you described. while on the one hand, the monitoring seems like a more practical alternative, i'm not sure it will actually change the kid.
a judge i know recently told me a story about a young kid that seems not unlike the boy you described: bright, intelligent, driven, etc. this boy was brought before the judge on a misdemeanor at the time, and the judge saw the kid's potential and gave him a relatively light punishment. despite the judge's kindness, the kid was in and out of court for the next ten years, for more and more serious crimes. he ended up coming before the judge again, and spat in the judge's face.
i'm not saying that people can't change; i just think it's interesting how many people use their best qualities to commit crimes.
Hi. My biigest concern about him being electronically monitored is that initiating a pursuit with police is much like putting a blindfold on and shooting a gun in a crowd. It is just luck that no one was injured or killed in the chase. His crime was only a property crime because it didn't turn out worse. Maybe he could be forced to sit down with some of the victems of his crime, whos cars were damaged, or even better, with people who have been injured or lost someone to a high speed pursuit....just a thought. That said, tethering is probably an acceptable punishment.
My instincts are that this is a good kid. We will see what we see. I am planning a meeting between him, his mentor, and myself to map out a course of action and to assess his attitude more closely.
i love your blog so far, it is a very interesting piece of work.
this is probably the better alternitive, because you said in an earlier blog that he had some potential education-wise, and im guessing this is rare in the type of enviornment that theyve grown up in.
i think it depends upon if he knew if the car was stolen or not when he was asked to drive it. and it would also have to depend upon the circumstances that he was asked.
If he was told it was stolen
was a gun held up to his head? was he threatened with his life? or was he offered some money and he REALLY needed it?
if he knew it was stolen and he was asked to drive it under the circumstances that i mentioned above, i think the electronic monitoring device should fit him well. this also applies to if he didnt know the thing was stolen... but if he did this just for the hell of it, then yes, i think he should go to jail. like i said, this would have to depend upon the circumstances that he was asked and what he knew...
it is horrible what happened when he tried to get away, i think he should have to pay for the damages put on the cars and for the injuries, and that he should be on a STRICT schedule for what he did with running away from the cops and all.
your idea of helping him in the library sounds pretty good too...
all in all, i think that is a very good choice to do, to moniter him i mean.
The kid in question wrote an apology to the people whose cars were damaged. I read it, and it seemed heartfelt and genuine.
As discussed by the judge at the first hearing, the kid will have substantial restitution to pay to the people whose cars were damaged.
I was happy to see that he did not try to act like a defiant smartass at the hearing. He waived a lot of rights. He seemed very contrite.
We never know, do we, what a person as inside him or her, and whether it is all an act or shows the real emotions.
I'll let you know how this situation develops.
Post a Comment