Some Blog Site

Well Susan Lefevre (AKA Marie Walsh) is back behind bars. Is that a good thing?

For those who don’t know the story: Susan Lefevre walked away from a Michigan prison 32 years ago and has been living a normal life in California since then, marrying and having 3 children. Her original conviction was for drug charges, selling to an undercover agent. She has been discovered in California and was recently re-arrested, being held in a California jail awaiting extradition to Michigan.

What are the benefits of re-arresting her? They are to see that justice is served, punish her for escaping, and provide a deterrent for other criminals by demonstrating that the laws are still enforced. What are the problems with re-arresting her? They are cost and her effectively 32 years of parole.

What is the point of putting someone in prison? To punish her, rehabilitate her, protect other citizens, or all of the above? If it is to protect other citizens, then I doubt that applies to this case. She is not a threat to anyone. Now on to the other points.

If it is to punish her, then are there other means of punishment that are not going to be a drain on society? Why not leave her out of prison, but sentence her to some monetary fine and community service? That would provide a benefit to society, rather than costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per year to lock her up. Some punishment is needed to keep the laws valid, but not jail time in this case. The prison space is needed for everyone who is currently dangerous and causing problems.

If the point is to rehabilitate her, then I argue she has already rehabilitated herself. If 32 years of being a productive member of society and committing no more crimes doesn’t mean you’re clean, then what does? Some may argue that she was living a clean life only to avoid being detected and captured. But aren’t there plenty of people out there who don’t have a criminal record who are doing the same thing? Some people need money, but the only reason they don’t rob a bank is because they don’t want to get caught. It’s too tricky to judge people on their intent. A parolee is judged not on his thoughts, but on his actions.

But what lesson is this teaching other criminals? Are they being taught that if you escape, just keep quiet long enough and then you’ll be forgiven? If everybody did what Susan Lefevre did, what would happen? There would be no more crime, no more welfare, etc. There are some dangerous criminals who should be rounded up. It helps this case that there is no direct victim or victim’s family. It would be hard to say she should be left alone if, for example, she had murdered someone. Why should she get to live a nice life while her victim doesn’t get to live? But that doesn’t apply to this case. How do we encourage criminals to leave the crime behind and become productive members of society?

If I were the governor of Michigan (currently Jennifer Granholm), I would be tempted to stop this whole debate by pardoning this woman. But the system should be adjusted to account for these types of cases. I think they will be more common in the future, as states are sharing their records and advances in technology and forensics allow DNA and other things to be tested and cross-referenced. Filling the prisons with non-violent criminals who have been clean for decades makes sense only if the prisons are empty and there is no one else to put in there. But an appropriate punishment should be determined, in order to provide a deterrent for those who are tempted to escape from prison.

A mom near Chicago was charged with child endangerment for not leaving the child out of her sight. Thankfully, charges have been dropped. Still, she should never have been arrested. The Crestwood police department seems to have shot first and asked questions later.

Leaving a sleeping 2-year-old in a car instead of taking her into sleet is reasonable. Staying within 30 feet (and sight) of the car adds to the reasonableness. Locking the car also helps. What exactly was the danger? Where was the abuse? What has caused more harm to the family and therefore to the child – being left in a car for a couple of minutes or having the mother arrested and taken away from not only that child but also the others? Which is in the best interest of the child – having the mother nearby while sleeping peacefully or having the mother go to court and being subjected to a bunch of scrutiny and stress?

Treffly Coyne’s actions did not warrant such a harsh treatment from the community service officer – such micro-managing of parents for something that is not a problem. The state of Illinois is providing training for people who are expected to report child abuse. You are to notify DCFS when you notice that someone has “put the child at risk of physical injury”. That law must be read to include the word “reasonable” in front of “risk”, otherwise, no one could do anything with his children. What is more likely to cause physical injury – sitting in a locked car or driving down the 2-lane road to get to the parking lot? Simply putting the child in the car and driving somewhere causes the child to be at risk of physical injury. You wouldn’t expect all parents to stop driving, would you? You couldn’t even take your kids to Cedar Point.

The problem is that “reasonable” is subjective. And subjective laws are open to misinterpretation and differences of opinion. I’m sure a jury full of parents would have found her innocent if the case had gone to trial, but I am glad the prosecutors dropped all charges.

And as for the other children, the ones that are old enough to remember this event, the ones that were left standing in the sleet while their mother was being arrested, what effect did this have on them? Was being left in the cold, wet winter in their best interest? Will they ever trust a police officer again? “Find a police officer if you are in trouble. He is there to help you.” They won’t believe that for a while.

Yes, the community service officer was doing an officer’s job. In the light of recent tragedies involving children in cars, the officer should have investigated. If you see a child locked in a car, check to see if a parent is around. But the key word is investigate, not prosecute. If there is no imminent danger (child is warm, breathing, etc.) then let the family life continue as it was. Do some more investigating in the background if necessary, then bring charges if something is apparent. But don’t interrupt the family life first in order to protect the child from nothing.

And that rhymes with P and that stands for Politician. Right here in River City.

Or across most of the USA. It seems that between Kwame Kilpatrick and Eliot Spitzer, those in power have trouble staying out of trouble. My first thought was “Is it that difficult to behave yourself?” My second though was that there are still 48 states not in the negative news.  Those that do stay out of trouble don’t get the headlines either, so we never know about the good guys. Then my next thought was that maybe those people just aren’t getting caught. It is rather sad how cynical we have become regarding politicians in the US today that we almost expect those in power to be corrupted, especially if they are in Washington D.C. If it is not expected, then at least people are not surprised when something happens.

A recurring theme among the news stories about the governor of New York relates to his work as the attorney general, his job before governor. He apparently was ruthless in his prosecution and showed no leniency. It will be interesting to see how he will be prosecuted. There are a number of people calling for his resignation and not wanting any kindness shown to him.
The mayor of Detroit, on the other hand, has not condemned anyone recently, and so he was able to survive a number of mini scandals. His smooth personality gained him a lot of leeway in his behavior. A lot of people are now seeing through his little act now, and he is getting deeper in trouble the longer he denies everything. But it is interesting to contrast the two situations.