creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
diane dimond
Diane Dimond
11 May 2013
Does the Department of Homeland Security Make You Feel Secure?

I've been doing a lot of thinking about our Department of Homeland Security lately. The DHS was formed after … Read More.

4 May 2013
Moving? Beware the Criminal Element

Hey, have you heard? The economy is improving! Car sales are up, so are new construction permits, and the … Read More.

27 Apr 2013
Radical Muslims Want Us Dead

Extreme factions of the Muslim religion want us dead — every American and everyone who embraces a … Read More.

A Judge Takes a Stand

Comment

We often hear people associated with the criminal justice system complain about how it works — or fails to work. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, police and social workers all cite specifics that they believe tip the scales of fairness.

Very rarely — if ever — do we hear from a judge. The ethics of their profession mandate they remain mum about public policy issues while on the bench. Even after they retire, the public rarely gets the benefit of their insight. I think that is a shame. Who better to help teach the public about how politician's laws — sometimes crafted and passed with headlines in mind — actually affect citizens?

This is a story about not one, but two judges from different states who came together to pro-actively help a woman they believed had been given a raw deal at sentencing. Their actions speak volumes about our justice system and prove there really is no such thing as one-size-fits-all sentencing.

In 2003, Denise Dallaire, a college graduate, was convicted for possessing and selling a relatively small amount of crack cocaine in Rhode Island. Seven years earlier, she had been arrested on a similar charge. (She explained she really wasn't into drugs herself but enjoyed the money she could make selling them). When Dallaire attended college in Connecticut, she had once thrown a glass and injured someone in a bar fight and had been arrested.

By the time Dallaire, at age 26, came before Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Lagueux to face the last charge, she had three strikes against her. Under mandatory sentencing laws, she was automatically considered a "career criminal." Lagueux made it clear at sentencing that his hands were tied — he was forced by law to pass a stiff sentence.

"This is one case where the guidelines work an injustice," he said that day in 2003. "And I'd like to do something about it, but I can't." Lagueux sentenced Dallaire to 15 years in prison. That moment bothered the judge for all the years Denise served her time at the federal prison for women in Danbury, Conn.

Over the last decade, Dallaire has been an exemplary inmate. She has made thousands of blankets, hats and pillows to donate to children suffering from cancer, and she organized fellow inmates to decorate and sell Christmas trees on behalf of cancer charities.

Dallaire admitted she deserved prison and that she had made "a lot of stupid and ridiculous decisions" in her early life. She seemed resigned to her fate and said she looked forward to her release in 2018. She had no possibility of early release.

At Danbury Prison, Dallaire met another judge — U.S.

District Court Judge John Gleeson from Brooklyn. Every year, Gleeson makes a pilgrimage to the prison so as to remind himself where he sends defendants. The judge takes his New York University Law School students and law clerks with him. Gleeson got to know Denise and told The New York Times he came to realize her case was a textbook example of how mandated sentences do more to ruin lives than protect society.

"There are a lot of people like Denise doing bone-crushing time under the old sentencing regime," Gleeson said. "We need to try to find ways to help them."

It is important to note that just two years after Denise was sentenced the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing guidelines, originally designed to target drug kingpins, were unconstitutional. Congress agreed and has twice passed laws to reduce sentences for crack cocaine convictions like Denise's.

Gleeson wants to start what he calls "The Mercy Project," wherein pro bono lawyers would help the hundreds of prisoners (thousands, by some estimates) languishing under antiquated sentences. With that in mind, Gleeson convinced a friend, a top New York lawyer named Jonathan Polkes, to seek a presidential pardon for Dallaire. Part of the process required them to go back to Judge Lagueux to sign on to the idea.

Lagueux earnestly wanted to help Denise but didn't think the pardon idea would work. Instead, he pointed out a procedural flaw that he, himself, had made at sentencing that could be exploited. Lagueux suggested bringing the case back to Rhode Island on the basis of his self-reported mistake.

Last month, Denise Dallaire was brought before the now 81-year-old judge who had sentenced her so many years earlier.

"I felt bound by those mandatory guidelines, and I hated them," Lagueux explained to the sobbing prisoner before him. "I'm sorry I sent you away for 15 years."

The judge then instructed that Dallaire be released on time served. He told her to hurry home to her sick mother in Groton, Conn. She was able to be with her mother for her final 11 days. As for her future, Denise says she wants to dedicate her life to helping others who are serving long sentences like she did win commutation.

Certainly, mandatory sentencing has helped lock up many real career criminals for a long time. But over-sentencing the undeserving doesn't keep us safer. Keeping them in prison long after the law that put them there has been struck down only adds to our mammoth prison costs. And, with every year that ticks by, it eats away at the prisoner's chance for reclaiming a productive life on the outside.

I like Judge Gleeson's idea of a selective Mercy Project to review the sentences of prisoners caught in the cracks like Denise. Any other justice-seeking judges out there interested?

Visit Diane Dimond's official website at www.dianedimond.com for investigative reporting, polls and more. To find out more about Diane Dimond and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am;... The idea most responsible for modern Law is that of the individual, unique and abstracted from his or her community so that the community is not made to answer for and suffer the punishment incured by individual people... And then they destroy the notion by treating all crimes of a class as one, and all people convicted on that crime as the same... Where is the individual approach to justice???...
Where is the obvious recognition that not all crimes of a class, or all crime, or all criminals are equal... What ever you can say bad of social justice in the time of blood feuds; the Moots and Dooms and Things of our primitive age at least could consider every aspect of the events and make a allowance for all... If the effect of law has been on the one hand to make communities as powerless as they are free of responsibility, and on the other hand has made courts powerless except to produce a cookie cutter version of justice as if by a machine designed for that sole purpose, then why not remove the judges, the courts and all the human element???
Why not remove the humanity??? Just look at the statistics, and if ten percent of a certain population is bound to be incarcerated, then incarcerate that percent and don't bother with police and judge and juries...That is the problem all told of formal behavior... People attached to their forms behave as the form tells the to act and forget they have their own heads on their own shoulders for a reason...
It is like Jesus before the Sanhedron multiplied... He preached against the form, but formal religion was the economy of Jeruselem... Those who represented the form got a hold of him, and to protect their form decided it was better that one should die than many...The problem was no longer the moral problem of an excessive and unjust injury to one, but was reduced to a mathematical consideration, as their religion always was, a great tit for tat... We should do no less than they...
Problem people were put out the way in days past, but peace and justice were maintained well... People could not afford an eye for an eye and a life for a life, so thay made a financial accomodation... And it was they themselves making it... Justice was entirely at their dispossal... And for us, though the madmen among us never get their fill of the suffering they want imposed in prison; such people if they cannot buy a heart, should buy a calculator... We cannot afford the law we have, and the more we have, the more we need because it does not work... And the more we want people to suffer by law, the more we must suffer the price of law, which when it does not bring justice does not bring peace, and so the cost continues to grow...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Apr 6, 2013 8:32 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Diane Dimond
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 15 May 2013
Dennis Prager
Dennis PragerUpdated 14 May 2013
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 14 May 2013

18 Jun 2011 We Need a New Drug Policy

31 Dec 2010 A Crime and Justice Wish List for 2011

11 Apr 2009 Who's Watching Our Trillion Dollars?