02-03-2012, 02:34 AM
Aloha Jerry,
Thank you again for your questions. They bring up some excellent points.
Just prior to being admitted to the Hawaii Bar, I was working at the Honolulu Prosecutors in the Legislative Unit. One of my jobs was to track legislative bills and to monitor how we, as law enforcement were doing. What I noticed was that Law Enforcement was successful at the legislature about 25 percent of any hearing. Most bills go through several hearings before they become law and can be held or die at any one hearing. During this time there was a bill being submitted that would make all Class A felony offenders eligible for probation. What did this mean? Class A Felonies are the most serious felonies below murder in the State. They included Robbery with a Deadly instrument, Rape with Force, Kidnapping, and Child Pornography. It also included some drug offenses, but at that time they were already eligible for probation. Why would they make these crimes eligible for probation? To me it was a lack of common sense, however, the official reason was a lack of prison space.
At that time I helped found a group called the Community Coalition for Neighborhood Safety (CCFNS). This group was comprised of community and neighborhood watch citizens. We created a petition and brought it to our state legislators. The petition, for the most part, said: "We the concerned citizens of the State of Hawaii believe that people who: Forcefully Rape our family members, use deadly instruments to steal from our persons, Kidnap and injure our family members or force our children into pornography, should be sent to prison and not be afforded the privilege of probation." The CCFNS got nearly 10,000 people to sign this petition and when the bill came up we went to the legislature with the petition. The bill was successfully killed.
During the first couple of years of its existence, whenever the CCFNS came to the legislature to argue for a law enforcement bill they were successful in their position 100 percent of the time. Remember, law enforcement (police and prosecutors) was successful only about 25 percent of the time.
While the Prosecutor is an elected position, the position has a limited ability to convince other leaders to decide how to spend money. However, you are correct, the prosecutor needs to create good working relationships to expand the number of judges and prison spaces. These relationships extend farther than just the formal leaders. I believe in the statement made by Sir Robert Peel that "The police are the public and the public are the police, with the police being the only members of society that are paid to do what is incumbent upon every citizen." In other words, we are all leaders and we all share the responsibility of convincing our elected officials to expand the number of prison spaces and number of judges.
Do I have some concrete ideas to combat congestion problem? You bet I do. We currently have technology to effectively have "house arrests" with electronic monitoring. While we still need to lock certain people up in prisons, there are many we can lock up in their own homes at their own expense. This expense should include the electronic monitoring devices as well.
As you may be aware, we have recently started requiring people with DUI offenses to install ignition interlock devices (in car breathalysers) in their car. These instruments prevent people from starting their car if they have a certain level of alcohol in their blood system. I am proud to say that I worked on the task force to enact this law. I am also proud to say that it has been working. Last year, its first year in effect, the interlock devices prevented over 4200 alcohol positive starts. Who pays for the devices, the offender.
Other ideas to reduce congestion are to work and support prison reentry programs. Currently we have a revolving door with recidivism rates over 50 percent. That means that more than half of the people we are prosecuting are going back and committing more crimes. One needs to look no further than Puna to find, what I believe to be one of the most successful prison reentry programs around. This program does not hail itself as a prison reentry program, but for all intensive purposes it acts as one. It takes men, most of whom are formerly addicted to drugs and alcohol,and gives them a support system and the ability to help themselves by helping others. This group takes no government funds and does not charge the men who join. I am of course talking about the Men of Pa'a. While they are not successful 100 percent of the time, they have a very low recidivism rate because they police themselves and hold their members accountable.
Another way to reduce the congestion is by focusing resources and improving the communication in the criminal justice system. This includes focusing on the persistent offenders and addressing the roots of crime.
As to the specific case that you mentioned, it is difficult for me to answer that question at this time (a furlough Friday morning at 6:30 a.m.), as I do not have all the facts to either justify why or criticize why the person got the sentence he received. Generally, my feeling is that if you kill someone while driving under the influence, no matter who you are, you should be sentenced to a prison term. In our State, at this time, the law is Negligent Homicide in the the First Degree, a Class B Felony, and carries a possible 10 year prison sentence. Whether 10 years is a long enough sentence is another topic.
I hope this answers some of your concerns.
With Aloha,
Mitch Roth
Thank you again for your questions. They bring up some excellent points.
Just prior to being admitted to the Hawaii Bar, I was working at the Honolulu Prosecutors in the Legislative Unit. One of my jobs was to track legislative bills and to monitor how we, as law enforcement were doing. What I noticed was that Law Enforcement was successful at the legislature about 25 percent of any hearing. Most bills go through several hearings before they become law and can be held or die at any one hearing. During this time there was a bill being submitted that would make all Class A felony offenders eligible for probation. What did this mean? Class A Felonies are the most serious felonies below murder in the State. They included Robbery with a Deadly instrument, Rape with Force, Kidnapping, and Child Pornography. It also included some drug offenses, but at that time they were already eligible for probation. Why would they make these crimes eligible for probation? To me it was a lack of common sense, however, the official reason was a lack of prison space.
At that time I helped found a group called the Community Coalition for Neighborhood Safety (CCFNS). This group was comprised of community and neighborhood watch citizens. We created a petition and brought it to our state legislators. The petition, for the most part, said: "We the concerned citizens of the State of Hawaii believe that people who: Forcefully Rape our family members, use deadly instruments to steal from our persons, Kidnap and injure our family members or force our children into pornography, should be sent to prison and not be afforded the privilege of probation." The CCFNS got nearly 10,000 people to sign this petition and when the bill came up we went to the legislature with the petition. The bill was successfully killed.
During the first couple of years of its existence, whenever the CCFNS came to the legislature to argue for a law enforcement bill they were successful in their position 100 percent of the time. Remember, law enforcement (police and prosecutors) was successful only about 25 percent of the time.
While the Prosecutor is an elected position, the position has a limited ability to convince other leaders to decide how to spend money. However, you are correct, the prosecutor needs to create good working relationships to expand the number of judges and prison spaces. These relationships extend farther than just the formal leaders. I believe in the statement made by Sir Robert Peel that "The police are the public and the public are the police, with the police being the only members of society that are paid to do what is incumbent upon every citizen." In other words, we are all leaders and we all share the responsibility of convincing our elected officials to expand the number of prison spaces and number of judges.
Do I have some concrete ideas to combat congestion problem? You bet I do. We currently have technology to effectively have "house arrests" with electronic monitoring. While we still need to lock certain people up in prisons, there are many we can lock up in their own homes at their own expense. This expense should include the electronic monitoring devices as well.
As you may be aware, we have recently started requiring people with DUI offenses to install ignition interlock devices (in car breathalysers) in their car. These instruments prevent people from starting their car if they have a certain level of alcohol in their blood system. I am proud to say that I worked on the task force to enact this law. I am also proud to say that it has been working. Last year, its first year in effect, the interlock devices prevented over 4200 alcohol positive starts. Who pays for the devices, the offender.
Other ideas to reduce congestion are to work and support prison reentry programs. Currently we have a revolving door with recidivism rates over 50 percent. That means that more than half of the people we are prosecuting are going back and committing more crimes. One needs to look no further than Puna to find, what I believe to be one of the most successful prison reentry programs around. This program does not hail itself as a prison reentry program, but for all intensive purposes it acts as one. It takes men, most of whom are formerly addicted to drugs and alcohol,and gives them a support system and the ability to help themselves by helping others. This group takes no government funds and does not charge the men who join. I am of course talking about the Men of Pa'a. While they are not successful 100 percent of the time, they have a very low recidivism rate because they police themselves and hold their members accountable.
Another way to reduce the congestion is by focusing resources and improving the communication in the criminal justice system. This includes focusing on the persistent offenders and addressing the roots of crime.
As to the specific case that you mentioned, it is difficult for me to answer that question at this time (a furlough Friday morning at 6:30 a.m.), as I do not have all the facts to either justify why or criticize why the person got the sentence he received. Generally, my feeling is that if you kill someone while driving under the influence, no matter who you are, you should be sentenced to a prison term. In our State, at this time, the law is Negligent Homicide in the the First Degree, a Class B Felony, and carries a possible 10 year prison sentence. Whether 10 years is a long enough sentence is another topic.
I hope this answers some of your concerns.
With Aloha,
Mitch Roth
With Aloha,
Mitch Roth
Mitch Roth