Sentencing/Post Conviction
Offenders Face Bans on Gambling, Alcohol, Live-in Boyfriends, Computers
Posted Aug 13, 2009 7:46 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Courts are grappling with supervised release terms that go beyond the usual restrictions on drug use and law-breaking.
Some felons convicted in federal courts are challenging restrictions on their post-prison life that they contend are arbitrary or too broad, the Wall Street Journal reports. The restrictions include bans on gambling, alcohol, live-in boyfriends, driving, inappropriate clothing and computer use.
The federal sentencing guidelines allow judges to impose special conditions during supervised release. These restrictions must be related to the crime and can’t cause “unnecessary deprivations” of liberty, the story says.
In one case, single mother Briane Woods of Odessa, Texas, convicted of distributing crack cocaine, was barred from living with anyone other than a relative or a spouse after her release from prison, the story says. U.S. District Judge Robert Junell of Midland, Texas, said he imposed the restriction to impose “stability” in Woods’ home. An appeals court struck down the ban last year as a restriction on Woods’ “constitutional right to liberty.”
In another case, William Robert Bender was sentenced to 18 months in prison for violating his supervised release terms by viewing adult pornography online at a public library. Bender’s prior conviction was for traveling from Missouri to Texas to have sex with a teenager he met online on a library computer when he was 27 years old. The supervised release terms barred Bender from possessing a computer or frequenting places where minors congregate without prior approval, and from possessing pornography or visiting a library.
A federal appeals court struck down all of the supervised release conditions except for the ban on the computer.
Bender's lawyer, federal public defender Troy Stabenow of Jefferson City, Mo., told the Wall Street Journal that supervised release conditions are increasingly strict, making it difficult to comply. "Frankly they are often crazy," he said.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Aug 13, 2009 7:58 AM CST
Perhaps offenders who object to their conditions could be allowed to stay in prison, if they find such to be preferable to these onerous restrictions. Don’t do the crime if you’re going to whine.
Flag this comment
Bean Counter
Aug 13, 2009 10:51 AM CST
Uhh… what part of the"supervised release” they don’t understand? In Mr. Bender’s case, he was using a library computer in his criminal act, so banning him from library seem appropriate. He has no need for a home computer when he can use the computer in the library.
Flag this comment
Esq.
Aug 13, 2009 12:36 PM CST
I think these judges were trying to save these people from themselves.
I have to agree with the Judge who restricted the single mother convicted of distributing crack cocaine to living with a spouse or family member. If a person chooses to have a child, their individual constitutional liberties should be secondary to the best interest of their child.
The judge was likely concerned that if the mother continues to distribute crack, that the child may either be left unsupervised while the deals are going down, or that the child will be unsavory characters in the home, or brought to dangerous places. Living with a spouse or relative at least provides a fighting chance that someone with familial ties might be available.
But apparently the courts felt it was more worthwhile to give the mother a second chance, even if it may place the child at risk. That the fact that the child bears a significant risk of being absused, neglected, endangered, of ending up with DSS are only secondary considerations to the mom’s right to shack up with whomever she chooses.
Flag this comment
Barrister
Aug 13, 2009 12:45 PM CST
Texas is the same state that lawfully allows its citizens to carry handguns to church. Against that context, the Constitutionally protected fundamental right to choose whom you live with in your private home is non-negotiable. What’s next? Texas courts deciding against interracial live-in partners?
It’s one thing to be tough on crime…being tough on the Constitution of the United States runs afoul of our founding document more often than it meets its supposedly narrow purpose.
There are certainly better ways to reach the purported goal or intention.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Aug 13, 2009 2:16 PM CST
Poor Mr. Bender—forced to obtain his pornography the old-fashioned ways: in print or on DVDs. At least justice triumphed here.
Flag this comment
James
Aug 13, 2009 3:55 PM CST
No computer? How is the guys supposed to search for a job or do any of the tasks that we take for granted? If they want to “supervise” the released inmate, let them “supervise” him by checking up on him. Perhaps they can even dump his hard drive if they like; however a blanket prohibition on computer use is grossly excessive. As far as the other restrictions, perhaps the courts should require a finding that the restriction is strictly related to the previous offense (something above rational basis).
Therefore if the person was in jail for a felony DUI, a restriction on alcohol is reasonable. If the person gambled illegally a restriction on gambling is appropriate.
We have to define what our goal is here. Do we want the released to make something of themselves or do we want to trip them up with mindless restrictions so we can send them back to prison at our expense. Bear in mind that we do have state and federal laws to keep them from doing the majority of bad acts.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 13, 2009 6:32 PM CST
God, yes. Before there were personal computers, none of us went anywhere or had jobs. We would just sit for hours, looking at the blank TV screen, wishing we had a keyboard to activate it. If we needed information about something, we would puzzle our way all around those “book” thingies, looking for a mouse or a button we could use to “open” them. Sometimes if we needed to communicate, we would actually go where another person was, and speak to them. There were also devices known as “telephones” we had to use to do that if the other people were too distant to reach in a single day by dinosaurback.
Flag this comment
I.E.
Aug 13, 2009 9:02 PM CST
What about cell phones and Blackberries? Should they also be banned since he can still access the Internet through these devices?
Flag this comment
The One
Aug 14, 2009 7:15 AM CST
Illinois recently passed a social networking ban for all s*x offenders. The law has a vague definition of “social networking site” which makes even places like this comment board off limits. This law will ultimately be struck down for vagueness. After all, there are many legitimate reasons to use social networks, such as job hunting, keeping up with long distance family members, or expressing your right to anonymous free speech on a comments board.
# The mere knowledge of a person’s past behavior does not justify a belief the person will
automatically re-offend (Tot v. US, 319 US 463.)
# While the state may claim a compelling interest in deterring convicted sex offenders from re- offending, there are certain fundamental rights that are being infringed upon, and thus “more than a compelling interest is needed to survive constitutional scrutiny. The statute must be narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interest.” [Reno v. Flores (1993), 507 US 292, 301-302].
# State v. Burnett (2001) 93 Ohio St. 3d 219, a law barring convicted drug offenders from entering Cincinnati’s “Over-The-Rhine” district failed constitutional analysis because it went beyond restricting those interests associated with illegal drug activity and restricted a substantial amount of innocent conduct, like living in an apartment, or visiting human services. The law restricted and/or punished behavior not even linked to criminal activity; merely the act of being in the restricted area was enough to get you arrested. Also, the restriction restricted drug offenders from obtaining the assistance or support networks necessary for rehabilitation which was otherwise severely diminished by the restrictions. Later upheld in Johnson et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 FED App. 0332P (6th Cir.), cert. denied, US Supreme Court case no. 02-1452.
# The courts also established in order to prove conspiracy, there must be some concrete action related to specific acts [US v. Cintolo, 818 F. 2d. 980, 1003 (1987)].
More *ex offender truth @ www.oncefallen.com
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.