Even as Conrad Murray was marched off in handcuffs after his conviction last week for involuntary manslaughter, legal analysts and the district attorney himself pointed out that Murray was unlikely to serve an "appropriate sentence." The maximum sentence for his crime is four years, but even if the judge throws the book at him on November 29, it will be largely meaningless. The truth is that he probably will serve almost no time in jail.
Why? That's the easy part. Prison overcrowding. It's a problem not only in California but across the nation. To deal with the unconstitutional problem, the legislature passed a bill called AB 109, which provides that convicts such as Murray, with no criminal record, are supposed to serve their sentences in county jails and not state prisons. But the county jails are just as crowded as the state prisons, so they routinely release those sent there literally in days or weeks, or sometimes even hours.
Consider the case of another famous wrongdoer: Lindsay Lohan. After reporting for her fifth jail sentence arising out of two arrests for drunk driving and repeated probation violations, Lohan spent about four and a half hours of her 30-day sentence in jail before going home. She reported to the jail at 8:50 p.m. and was back home by 2 a.m. According to jail officers, she skipped the meal offered to her. Imagine: no dinner.
The only unusual thing about Lohan's quick release is that we actually heard about it. As sheriff's officials explained, she was treated no differently than any other repeat offender with five jail sentences under her belt. In 2007, she spent exactly 84 minutes in jail before being released. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Lohan has spent more time coming and going to court than she has in jail. It could easily turn out that Murray will end up spending less time serving his sentence than the jurors did determining his guilt.
It's not that California hasn't been building prisons. Beginning in the 1990s, we went on a prison building spree, fueled both by the hypocrisy and gutlessness of politicians in passing harsh sentencing laws that allow them to claim they are "tough" on crime and the power of the prison guards union, for a time the fastest growing union in the state and the biggest spenders in political campaigns.
But between three strikes and two strikes and even one strike, between zero tolerance and treating juveniles as adults, and throwing the book at drunk drivers, and punishing those who commit robbery in the boardroom as seriously as those who do it on the street, even the boom couldn't keep up.
Then there are the other cost issues: If you're going to deprive people of their liberty, you have to feed them and take care of their health and protect them, all of which costs as much as a year in college. Talking tough is easy. Passing "harsh" laws makes politicians look good. Paying for it all is another matter.
I don't fault the sheriffs for letting people out. They have no choice. But it breeds cynicism when the public sees convicted criminals passing through jails rather than doing the time their sentences would seem to require. The fact that the district attorney came right out and said that Murray would not serve an "appropriate" sentence is at least better than watching him go in and out without knowing in advance that he would.
The best thing about Lohan's sentence, from my perspective, was not the 30-day jail term. It was the judge's requirement that she spend 423 hours at the county morgue sweeping floors and cleaning bathrooms. If Murray isn't going to spend four years in prison, he should at least spend that time doing something equally unpleasant. For years, serious students of the criminal justice system have argued that we need to develop alternatives to incarceration that actually punish people for their crimes without punishing the taxpayer at the same time.
Observers of the Conrad Murray case speculate that the judge probably ordered him to be marched off to jail pending his sentencing on November 29 because he knew that once he was sentenced, he wouldn't be spending much time in jail. The optics of seeing the convicted defendant taken away in handcuffs at least made it seem like the punishment would fit the crime. It won't. It usually doesn't.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
11 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Unfortunatly for Dr Murray, MJ was both victim and perpetrator. If MJ had not selected Murray to get him his drugs, it would have been another poor slob. Murray did wrong for money but it would have been someone else definitely if not Murray. Too bad MJ couldn't be tried for his own demise.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Early
Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:50 AM
|
|
|
|
What is your solution to the overcrowding and early releases, Ms Estrich.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Motley Wisdom
Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Estrich says "Then there are the other cost issues: ........Talking tough is easy. Passing "harsh" laws makes politicians look good. Paying for it all is another matter" For the left their unwillingness to punish the perp is always shrouded with the refrain that we cannot punish the perp because it will cost too much. Protecting the public from criminal scum is one of the primary duties of Government at State and Federal level. Where are Estrich's objections as to the cost of for example (a) the EPA, a runaway monster populated by enviro extremist nutjobs who are hell bent upon destroying all human activity, destroying jobs and wrecking business from which revenue for then fitting incarceration of criminals may be obtained, or (b) the cost of the Department of Edcucation the Democrat money laundering machine the only role of which is to milk the productive, the taxpayers and the Revenue of cash in order to bolster the pensions of useless public schoolteachers and to fund Democrat political campaigns and thus to steal money that cold be used to protect the public from criminals and indeed Democrats, or (c) the Commerce Department or(d) the cost Moochelle's endless vactions and the legion of make up artists need to make her look somewhat human. Hearing the left speak about crime and punishment really does make one's head spin. The left adores criminals, are mostly criminals themselves or of criminal tendency whose governing mantra is thou shall not punish the perpetrator.
Comment: #3
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Susan, you conveniently left out the reasons for the high costs of running prisons in California. Thanks to the unions, a prison doctor in California can earn $248,172 a year before overtime or extra-duty compensation. A chief physician can make as much as $265,648 plus extra pay. One California prison psychiatrist earned $566,029 last year, including overtime and extra-duty pay. We pay $90000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement because we don't have the guts to execute them. It costs $49000 a year to keep a person locked up in a California prison - almost seven times what we spend on each child in our public schools. The base pay for a state prison guard is $73,728, and by including overtime many guards earn up to $100,000 annually. A 2006 Los Angeles Times investigation found that 6,000 guards were earning more than $100,000. One lieutenant raked in $252,570. Besides generous salaries and benefits, prison guards in California can retire as early as age 50. In retirement they are eligible to receive as much as 90 percent of their income: According to the state retirement formula, guards over 50 receive a percentage of their last year's salary equal to three times the number of years worked.
So, Susan, do the real math. Your union buddies are the real criminals here, robbing from the taxpayer so that we can't afford to punish the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Dr. Murray.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Lesley Barnard
Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:50 AM
|
|
|
|
My brother works as a prison guard here in the great state of Pennsylvania and he makes $32,00 a year. More reasonable I'd say. Keep in mind everything is more expensive in CA and these are some of the highest numbers in the country. There does need to be a balance of keeping criminals off the streets and overcrowding the prisions. It is a tricky task. No matter how tough the system is there will always be criminals and its up to everyday people to be alert and take steps to protect themselves to a certain degree.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:41 AM
|
|
|
|
A concealed gun worn by every citizen would be the best deterent to crime. It would save us a lot of dough too.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Early
Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:51 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Early I live near Killadelphia and walk heavy every time I visit that Dem controlled Dem devastated haven of crime. Meet my friend Mr. 1911.
Comment: #7
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Prisons are big business. Those reaping large profits from private and public prisons don't want the steady flow of prisoners and money to stop. There are cases of judges taking payoffs to guarantee more inmates and longer sentences. We have more people in prison than any other leading nation, probably several other countries combined. Also, prisons have replaced mental hospitals. I would like to see some statistics on the percentage of prison inmates who are mental patients. The prison system is another of our broken government arms due to greed, injustice, and politicians telling the electorate anything to get votes. A sad state of affairs.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Arlene Duke
Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Arlene Duke Yeah! and none of them are bad guys who deserve to be there, too young, too old, criminally insane, already rehabbed, can't be rehabbed, say they were innocent, wrote a book for kids, did not mean to rape and murder that nice family, ya da ya da ya da. Bad profiteers doing the job the Government should be doing they should be in prison right!
Comment: #9
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should go back to having prisoners pay for their living expenses while in prison. Those who are broke would have the government cover for them.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Clucri
Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Just thought I would bring to your attention a Deputy DA in Los Angeles that has a solid plan for reform. He calls it "Reform First". He is running for DA of Los Angeles in 2012 and has stood up against his boss Steve Cooley for the past ten years. Cooley has been trying to destroy him, but he is bright with great ideas for reform and wrote Marsy's Law the Victims Bill of Rights.
www.SteveIpsen.com - Here outlines his plan for reform here and advocates that making low level offenders is creating more crime. He want to make the low level offenders pay back to society rather than making them all felons immediately and dependent on the system.
Comment: #11
Posted by: La Injustice
Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
