The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
No jail time. No attorneys. No need for the state to spend its scarce dollars.
At least, that was the thinking of some Virginia prosecutors who proposed a novel way to save money: They won't seek jail time for misdemeanor charges and the judge won't have to appoint a state-paid attorney to represent indigent defendants.
Supporters of HB1394 suggest that it will save Virginia several million dollars, although how much is unclear.
"I haven't seen anything like this," said Virginia Beach Commonwealth's Attorney Harvey Bryant, a supporter of the measure. "The funding situation is so serious that we'll look for cases where we'll say, 'We're not seeking jail time.' "
Commonwealth's attorneys floated this idea as a way to prevent deeper cuts into their budgets and staff. Instead of laying off prosecutors, the state would pay less for court-appointed attorneys.
Del. Robert Bell, R-Charlottesville, said the legislation is too broad and takes jail time off the table for misdemeanors such as domestic violence, drug possession and first-offense drunken driving.
"It's just going to be like a traffic ticket," Bell said. "Serious offenses will slip by."
The misdemeanors that qualify for jail time - in some cases up to a year, under current law - range from driving without a license, shoplifting and making threatening phone calls to stalking, sexual battery and prostitution.
A supporter of the bill, Springfield Republican Del. David Albo, said that in many cases, people convicted of misdemeanors, such as first-offense marijuana possession or simple assault, aren't sentenced to jail anyway. Prosecutors already have the authority to waive jail - this bill makes sure they do so when possible, he said.
Some area defense attorneys said the legislation, which also is backed by Gov. Bob McDonnell, could have harmful unintended consequences for defendants.
If defendants who can't afford an attorney want to fight a charge, they could be left on their own, said Michael Kmetz, a Norfolk attorney. Most people don't know the rules of evidence or when to raise procedural questions that could help their case, he said.
"I can count on one hand where I've seen an individual go in without a lawyer and win a case," Kmetz said.
He also worries that prosecutors and judges may use fines instead of incarceration as a way to make more money for the state. How are defendants who can't afford a lawyer going to be able to pay, he wondered.
Some defendants may have received a suspended sentence for a prior offense and pleading guilty to another offense could put them behind bars, noted defense attorney Moody E. "Sonny" Stallings Jr.
"Just because they're taking away a jail sentence doesn't mean that the seriousness of that event doesn't warrant an attorney," Stallings said.
Bryant said his office will have to review the cases to determine whether it's worth seeking jail for an offense. For domestic violence cases, he said he expects he will continue to request jail time.
Senators still have to consider the legislation.
The public likely will see reductions to many services because of the state's fiscal situation, said Dick Hickman, a deputy staff director for the Senate Finance Committee.
"There's lots of things in this budget for everybody to hate," he said.
Deirdre Fernandes, (757) 222-5121, deirdre.fernandes@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo

Leave it to the Pilot to
Leave it to the Pilot to propagandize against any measure that could possibly save taxpayers money. That would go against the grand commun.. I mean "progressive" vision, now wouldn't it.
Come on now....
the HRT employees who stole $80,000 in bus fare were never even charged and the justice system is sweating the load on petty crimes. Get with the program and calibrate the scale, so that blind justice can see clearly what is at stake here.
come on yourself
HRT? Please.
DEATH BY JUSTICE?
Come on you, please.
Are you serious?
I have no idea what these idiots are smoking! I have been in law enforcement for over thirty five years, and thought I had seen it all. I stand corrected and totally amazed at the stupidity of the legislators who hold public office. I realize that budgets are stretched thin but this,---- I cannot get my mind wrapped around this much stupidity at one time. It must be an epidemic of the stupid virus, and it's very contagious!
I think you need to read again what I wrote
Some of that sounds good in theory, but it is a bit broad
Submitted by 2cents on Mon, 03/08/2010 at 1:19 am.
It is time to take the sin laws off the books. Don't even lodge misdemeanor charges for non-harmful, non-violent victimless events. Decriminalize drugs, drunk in public, first time DUI under .1., noise ordinance, etc. Stop the silliness, this junk just clogs up the courts, makes it impossible for some kids to turn their lives around. If and when these events become a problem or present a societal harm they can always be put back on the books.
==============================
Furthermore, the only thing I have against Bush is all the spending bills he didn't veto. I understand it is a tit-for-tat game in Washington and without singing he would not have gotten congress to fund the military as they should. I personally think global warming is a complete and utter hoax perpetrated by a bunch of frauds.
I fully agree that these sin laws ruin too many lives over little or nothing. I was very specific on the level of first time DUI offense that should be considered for decriminalization, between .08(the legal standard now) and .1(the legal standard before MADD went compl
no they didn't learn
No, they didn't learn anything. Because in their world, the accused are ALWAYS guilty. Now they want to do away with the Sixth Amendment. Total madness!
more lunacy from the far right
I dont understand the mind of the far right. They are so hellbent on enforcing the Second Amendment where they are willing to far exceed the intentions of the Founders. However the far right is perfectly willing to subvert the Sixth Amendment in a twisted way to solve the budget mess.
Just a reminder to the far righties who hate lawyers. "In every criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel to his defense."
Mr. Commonwealth Attorney Bryant :
Wait until MADD sees the first person killed by someone who is a repeat offender, and who had just left Court after his first one after a nice little speech and (unpaid) fine by the Judge.....Wait until the citizen who is repeatedly battered by his drunken, violent neighbor is told that the Judge is now going to increase the (previously unpaid) fine from $250..to $2,500 and,AGAIN request the guy to behave because YOU said "NO JAIL "....... Wait until the Va Beach Police Officer,who,for a ridiculously low salary,is told that, after risking his or her life is told by the Judge that YOU just wanted Junior to get a nice little lecture and a fine...... These ,and many,many,many other classes of aggrieved people will come looking to YOU...And they SHOULD because you will have forsaken your JOB if you follow through with these half-baked plans... .
Currently...
first time offenders of many crimes are given waivers of jail time with the caviat of a year or so of good behavior. The first offenses have to fit certain criteria and usually cannot be given if the person is charged with other misdemeanor/felony offenses. Included in these crimes are shoplifting, simple assault, simple domestic assault, DUI (so long as it's under .15 BAC), marijuana and underage alcohol. Therefore this law would not prematurely release criminals into society and discipline would not be lacking as current treatment of misdeamnor charges already do that. Sometimes the act committed is so egregious that it calls for jailtime (some reckless driving charges/incidents, DUI with BAC .15 or higher, results in loss of life/limb/property, etc) but those cases are not the norm.