Resist rush to condemn; judges honorable
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the recent Missoulian editorial decrying its perception of certain child molesters and rapists going free due to the sentencing decisions of several of our very well-respected District Court judges.
I strongly emphasize that it is not my intent to excuse the conduct of the convicted felons identified. That would be profoundly inexcusable. Nor do I wish to minimize the severity of such crimes. I am no apologist. Sexual crimes are despicable acts of violence, plain and simple.
District Court judges are ethically constrained from holding in-depth media discussions over the cases in which they preside. That is as it should be. I have never had the privilege of serving as a Montana District Court judge. However, as a former prosecutor and a criminal law defense counsel, my hope is to shed a bit more light on the actual legal protocol that is routinely followed in sentencing a convicted felon.
Judges do not impose felony sentences in an isolated vacuum. Upon entry and acceptance of a guilty plea or by verdict, the Court orders a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSI). The PSI is conducted by very well-trained, professional parole and probation officers who undertake an extensive background check of the now-convicted defendant and also a very important victim impact statement. In the case of sex offenders, Montana law mandates that the PSI include psychosexual testing and evaluation by certified specialists to determine the risk the offender presents to the community and the potential for effective treatment. For those found to be of high risk and not amenable to treatment, our judges have no qualms about sentencing them to long sentences in prison. Rightly so.
Based upon all relevant circumstances, the PSI includes the probation officers recommendation to the judge as to an appropriate sentence. By law, the PSI is strictly confidential; shared by the judge only with the prosecutor, defense attorney and law enforcement — not the public or media.
Each case turns on its own facts. At sentencing, all affected, including the victim, are given full opportunity for hearing in court. Judges have sound discretion to accept or reject the PSI recommendation as they feel appropriate. Usually, with the joint concurrence of both the prosecutor and defense counsel, the PSI’s recommended sentence is imposed.
Contrary to the editorial’s unfounded and inflammatory claim, felons never “go free.” Even when what might initially appear as a lax jail sentence is imposed, parole and probation officers keep a very tight leash on the offender and the penal consequences of violation can be quite severe.
In high profile cases like those cited in the editorial, I can certainly understand the general public’s frustration with what is perceived to be miscarriages of victim priority within our judicial system. It is natural to assign blame, even with incomplete knowledge. But, trying to unduly influence, indeed intimidate, our judges by the shrill clamor of “hang ‘em high” is a dangerous step through the doorway of vigilante injustice. However challenging, we should all strive to resist the premature bandwagon rush to condemnation.
Honest, well-informed debate and civil disagreement on such highly charged subjects is most appropriate. That said, in my experience, I find our Montana District Court judges, parents themselves, to be honorable, conscientious public officials doing their utmost to pay fidelity to their Constitutional Oath and do justice for all involved. Nothing more can be fairly asked.
