Patterico's Pontifications

12/11/2006

Steve Lopez: Prison for Drug Dealers, Not Violent Offenders

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:54 am



It appears that, if L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez had his way, the State of California would spring from prison a man repeatedly convicted of assaults and death threats, in order to make room for a drug dealer.

Lopez had a column yesterday bemoaning the fact that a man with a history of assaultive and threatening conduct will be headed to prison for 25 years to life for once again assaulting and threatening the life of a victim.

Lopez’s desire for lenient treatment of this victim is interesting, given his previous clarion call for prison time for a man convicted of possessing eight ounces of cocaine.

Let’s look at the subject of yesterday’s column: Stephan Lilly.

In 1997, he was convicted of assaulting his wife with a pipe. In 2005, a criminal threat against his wife went down on the books as strike two.

Lopez does not tell us the details of those crimes. How badly was Lilly’s wife hurt in the attack with the pipe? What threats did he make against his wife in 2005? Was there any violence associated with that incident? Was there an ongoing pattern of domestic violence? We don’t learn this.

But Lopez does tell us that the Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted Lilly wrote a sentencing memo that

noted that Lilly’s criminal record stretched back to 1981 and included a conviction for aiding and abetting in an assault, driving while impaired, possession of a controlled substance and misdemeanor battery.

In Lilly’s latest case, he was convicted of — guess what? — assaulting and threatening someone. Who woulda thunk it?

According to Lopez, a security guard testified at Lilly’s trial that, a short time after Lilly was paroled on his latest criminal threats case, “Lilly slammed him against a wall several times, lifted him off his feet and threatened to kill him.”

But, Lopez tells us, Lilly also has psychological problems. He is a paranoid schizophrenic. He hears voices. He’s suicidal. Apparently Lopez seems to think that this all means that it is wrong for Lilly to be going to prison for a long period of time. But all previous efforts to treat Lilly’s mental illness didn’t prevent him from assaulting and threatening someone. And when you tell me that someone is suicidal and is hearing voices, it doesn’t make me think: gee, this person doesn’t sound dangerous. It makes me think of David Berkowitz, and the dog that he believed had advised him to commit several murders.

Lilly has apparently had treatment for his problems in the past. And that treatment didn’t stop him from: committing battery; aiding and abetting an assault; attacking his wife with a pipe; threatening his wife; or threatening and attacking the victim in the present case.

What is Lopez’s point? I’m not really sure. He sympathetically describes the efforts by Lilly’s attorney to have his sentence reduced, or even to have his conviction reduced to a misdemeanor — an act that would put Lilly back on the street in short order, to assault and threaten even more victims. Lopez even suggests that perhaps the law should be changed so that people like Lilly could raise a defense of diminished capacity, saying that:

it seems preposterous that [Lilly] and countless others go on trial with virtually no consideration given to the demons that led to the violence.

What seems even more preposterous is for Lopez to make that claim after describing how Lilly’s defense lawyer put on a witness at his trial who

described how Lilly was “a diagnosed schizophrenic” who had been hearing voices and had been trying unsuccessfully to get medication at the time he attacked Dominguez.

Since the crime of making criminal threats is a specific intent crime, Lilly’s mental illness is something the jury was entitled to consider in determining whether he had formed the requisite criminal intent. From Lopez’s column, it appears “preposterous” to argue that “virtually no consideration” was given to this issue at Lilly’s trial. I’m certain that it was the only real issue at the trial — and guess what? The jury found, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lilly had the required intent.

Lopez continues:

The defense of “diminished capacity” used to address that very reality, and although it was abused, some refined form of it seems appropriate.

Yes, it has been abused, most notably by the fellow who used the “Twinkie defense” against charges of murdering the mayor of San Francisco and a county supervisor. Does Lopez want to see diminished capacity and the Twinkie defense return? How would he draft legislation that would not be abused? He doesn’t tell us.

The only thing that would get Lilly into a mental institution would be a successful plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. But Lilly and his attorney apparently didn’t pursue that option, even though it was available.

What I find especially ironic is that, while Lopez implies that this repeatedly assaultive and threatening person should get a misdemeanor, or even a walk due to his mental illness, Lopez is the same fellow who in September was screaming about the fact that a dope dealer with eight ounces of cocaine wasn’t going to prison.

We get the message, Steve. If someone repeatedly assaults and threatens members of the public, we should give them a pat on the head and a trip to the psychiatrist. But if they deal some dope, throw the book at them.

Is is sad that someone with mental illness is going to prison for a potential life sentence? Sure, on some level. But the system has to protect the public from people like Lilly. It sounds like that happened in this case. If Steve Lopez has a alternate suggestion that would actually protect the public, he should tell us what it is. He sure doesn’t do so in yesterday’s column.

21 Responses to “Steve Lopez: Prison for Drug Dealers, Not Violent Offenders”

  1. Lopez is not alone among newspersons in saying that those who are out of prison should be in, and those who are in should be out. Otherwise, he doesn’t have anything fresh and interesting to say. Who wants to read Lopez affirming that the criminal justice system works well enough? The paradigm of an opinion story is that something, somewhere, is terribly, terribly wrong.

    dchamil (447974)

  2. Could it be that Lopez is wrong regarding the drug laws, but absolutely right about the mental illness issues in our justice system?

    In addition to the war on the laws of supply and demand (otherwise known as the drug war) another reason the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world is that, at least on a national level, mental health services for the non-rich in America are virtually non-existent. Some states do a bit better, but in many states, the infrastructure for the mentally ill consists of prison.

    Ever tried getting long-term mental health treatment with health insurance? Most health insurance polices exclude mental health coverage beyond a few checkups and a short hospitalization. So the really sick get diagnosis, cursory treatment, and then the benefits dry up.

    One of the saddest areas where this happens is with traumatic brain injuries, where very real disabilities go untreated once they float into the “mental illness” or “behavioral treatment” category. You would be amazed at how many people who have suffered traumatic brain injuries end up in prison because the disabilities caused by the injury aren’t treated, and they’re simply released into a society they can’t cope with.

    Rather than truly treating the mentally ill, the American system just wait for them to commit a crime, and then we lock them up. For society, it solves the problem in much the same way that hospitalization and treatment do — except we look tough on crime, rather than like we’re giving handouts.

    Phil (88ab5b)

  3. when your husband is attacking you with a pipe, does it really matter if he wants to hurt you because he doesn’t like you, or he’s just mentally ill?

    assistant devil's advocate (1c70a8)

  4. It’s nice to find something I agree with you on. I have only visited a couple times, about the same issue.

    I might go as far as to agree that he should go into a mental institution, but that system seems to have booted him back to the public without the tools to control the behavior. But until that system is working properly, to protect both the offender and the public from the offender – keep the guy off the streets. Is it fair to punish this guy for the failures of the system? No. But it is also unfair to punish everyone who lives anywhere near this guy, by allowing him out on the streets.

    DuWayne (4f17f1)

  5. At the risk of having Liberal Avenger call me a liar again, I had a client very much like Stephan Lilly. I got him as a client when he held a knife to his wife throat, under the Chief Judge’s window at the Courthouse, during their divorce proceedings. He did not hurt her. It was resolved without further violence to anyone.

    1. On medication, he was a zombie;
    2. Off medication and free he was a public nuisance and occasionally a dangerous nuisance;
    3. In prison, where I got to know him best, and off medication he was a very bright, energetic although very often combative and insulting person. Of all my criminal clients he participated in the strategy of his defense the most in a very helpful way. We came within a hair of prevailing (so I think).

    It is sad, it is difficult not to resent them for their behavior, and it is difficult not to curse whatever made them this way.

    nk (35ba30)

  6. P.S. It should be “wife’s throat”. As for the numbering and semi-colons, it’s because I just veered from drafting an order. 😉

    nk (35ba30)

  7. This is a very interesting topic here.

    When we talk about ethics this way, I start to think: what are the moral justifications for our laws and punishments? Why is that that we don’t punish a child for wrongdoing in the same way that we punish an adult (less true than it used to be, but for the most part). It’s because the adult supposedly knows what he is doing and knows the consequences of his actions. You cannot say that a child knows what he is doing in the same way.

    I think the same holds true for retarded and insane people (of course, there is some dispute there, but let us assume these are sufficiently retarded or insane people that they can’t tell right from wrong). Mr. Advocate says that if someone was coming at you with a pipe, you wouldn’t bother to check if that person was insane before defending yourself. Of course – a clear case of self defense. But when someone is captured and in a cage, that person is no threat. Therefore, how can we punish someone that doesn’t know what he is doing? Clearly we must keep that person away from society to protect others, but how else can we punish him? Doesn’t seem to have any moral foundation to me.

    Russell (96c1d0)

  8. Of course, Patterico makes a good point about the hypocrisy of Lopez when it comes to drug dealers. The whole media is at fault when it comes to overreacting about minor crimes involving drugs.

    Russell (96c1d0)

  9. Therefore, how can we punish someone that doesn’t know what he is doing?

    You could consider that locking someone in prison will teach them not to swing lead pipes at people… If he doesn’t know what he’s doing, prison would hopefully teach them that little bit of necessary information.

    In the rare cases where the antagonist doesn’t have the capability to learn such social niceties, then perhaps prison is a good place for them. It would be nice if there was a low-cost therapeutic solution to these kinds of problems, but if there is, I’ve yet to hear of it.

    Darkmage (c20107)

  10. “You could consider that locking someone in prison will teach them not to swing lead pipes at people…”

    Are you kidding, Darkmage? I don’t think there’s a better place to get a crash course in brutal violence than prison.

    I knew a guy once that got 5 years for dealing marijuana. He wasn’t a violent person when he went in, but he sure was when he got out. That’s what ceaseless beatings and rapes do to someone, and that’s why, if you’re trying to reduce recidivism, you don’t send nonviolent drug offenders to prison.

    Anyway, you miss my point. What I’m saying is that it’s not morally justifiable to punish retarded or insane people. It might be a cheap (what, $30 grand a year?) solution, but I’m saying it’s wrong to do so.

    Russell (96c1d0)

  11. Great site!

    Since you are such a big Lynne Stewart fan—
    heh!

    please visit my blog and check out my coverage of the brave patriotic protestors in:
    Crash of the Lynne Stewart ‘Gloat Party’

    We crashed Lynne Stewart’s ‘GLOAT PARTY’ last night at the Judson Memorial Church downtown across from Washington Square Park. It was a rousing affair to say the least and it came as a complete surprise to the Lynne Stewart folks who were throwing her a celebration called ‘Ode to Joy and Struggle’ thanking everyone for their support over the 4 years during her trial and also to ‘unite for the struggle ahead’. ‘Struggle’ they say? As in ‘Mein Kampf’ maybe? As in ‘jihad’ too perhaps..?

    Urban Infidel (3f7931)

  12. i understand the concept of insanity (having been accused of it myself) but there’s an additional component in cases such as nk’s client, something there that wants to hurt an innocent victim, which may be called “evil” or anything else you like. we’re not punishing the insanity, we’re punishing the evil and keeping it at a safe distance from us for the duration of the sentence.
    i’ve had female clients who were victims of violence. almost invariably, it was because the man felt he was losing control over the woman and the situation and this was the only thing he could figure out. our outlook on things is often determined by our empathy with the parties, and it’s a lot easier for me to empathize with the woman with the knife at her throat. this is a messy planet and there are bound to be injustices. i cannot simultaneously care for the victims and worry about the plight of their attackers. my worry budget is fully subscribed now, absolutely no additional worries will be entertained until the beginning of the next worry planning period.

    assistant devil's advocate (1c70a8)

  13. […] Patterico has a blog on a case where a reporter has called for a man to be let off from the 3 strikes law. Lopez had a column yesterday bemoaning the fact that a man with a history of assaultive and threatening conduct will be headed to prison for 25 years to life for once again assaulting and threatening the life of a victim. […]

    Three Strikes « Something should go here, maybe later. (f8ed6d)

  14. The underlying story here is the tragedy of mental health law in this country. In the late 60s, the ACLU and certain patient “advocates” succeeded in getting the committment of psychotic patients banned. There began the “homeless” problem and the problem of the violent mentally ill. Phil complains that prison is the only option now but there is a reason. The treatment of psychosis is governed by mythology for the past 40 years. Heartbroken families of psychotic individuals try to get the laws changed but they are up against a nexus of state legislatures who don’t want to pay for institutional care and lunatic advocates who don’t believe in mental illness. The combination is lethal for many people.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  15. Yes, it is a tragedy that this man is mentally ill. And I’m sure that will make the family of his next victim feel a lot better should he finally end up killing someone!

    The point is – this man needs to be off the streets and away from the possibility of harming the innocent public. And given the mush-brained thinking of a lot of mental health professionals given the task of treating the criminally insane and their unfortunate habit of letting these psycopaths back out into society prematurely, I’m even inclined to believe the public’s right to be protected IS better served by incarceration.

    Heck no it isn’t ideal or even close to it. But the bottom line is that I don’t feel inclined to sacrifice my life or that of someone I love – or even a total stranger – so old Steve can FEEL good about the outcome.

    Gayle Miller (1288b1)

  16. I wonder if Steve Lopez is one of those real diehards who wouldn’t change his mind about Lilly even if one of his direct family members was attacked and/or murdered by this psycho.

    No, I’m not changing the word “psycho” for something politically correct, like “mentally challenged”. Let’s tell it like it is.

    rightisright (2cbc9b)

  17. Patterico, just as I’m beginning to appreciate that you are a rock’n’roll fan and a family man, you come up with this rant. Did you have a bad week at the office or in court?

    You don’t challenge the facts as described in Lopez’s column, only his characterizations and inferences. So if the facts as laid out in his column are correct, Lilly’s third-strike sentence of 25-to-life (with 80% time required before even consideration of parole) was NOT based on an assault that put a mental-health worker “in fear of his life” but a conviction of 422 P.C., which is labeled “terrorist threats” but which basically can be anything someone utters in the heat of the moment that makes their “victim” scared. Nowhere does Patterico acknowledge that a supervisor seemed to admit that the alleged victim had little experience and should have been able to defuse the situation.

    C’mon, the crusade against the “liberal bias” in the L.A. Times is getting tired. If you are mad enough to cancel your subscription, then you shouldn’t be going online to use its content as fodder.

    If Lilly is and was so dangerous, why did your office make him an offer? And why not clarify that the Deputy D.A. somewhat maligned in Lopez’s column was merely following orders — that all offers in 3-strike cases come from Head Deputies?

    A mentally ill offender who has a history of impaired behavior commits a minor malfeasance (in the scheme of things in the L.A. criminal justice system) and gets 25-to-life and you take glee in comparing it to “Twinkie defenses” and trying to point out the author’s “hypocrisy” regarding drug offenses. Yeah, Patterico, you and your colleagues can have a fun victory dance in the end zone. Certainly, your oath of justice has been well-served.

    nosh (ee9fe2)

  18. I read that, and was especially struck by Lopez’ opinion that Lilly wouldn’t stand a chance in prison. What about the rest of us who try to get through the day without being assaulted by mentally ill? Would we stand a chance when this guy snaps? Why should we even be in this position?

    Also, the sister was contacted by phone, and exclaimed “Oh, Lordy!” when she learned he was going to prison. Too bad she and the rest of the family didn’t think enough of him to grab him and get him treatment. Guess it is our problem, not hers.

    TimesDisliker (0ad2c7)

  19. The law & order voice within me says that Mr. Lilly has forfeited his right to interact with society at large, and needs to be incarcerated until he reaches room temperature.
    The snarky voice says that he should be appointed as Mr. Lopez’ editor at the LAT, or even Managing Editor. He certainly has an effective way of getting his message across, and might be able to impose some discipline in the news room.

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  20. Russell, it would seem that he already knows how to swing a lead pipe pretty well. Just who is going to be teaching whom in prison? We’re not talking about a stoner sent to jail for killing off his own brain cells, we’re talking about a serial abuser with a history of assaulting people.

    I must reiterate: I wish there was a low cost option to provide treatment to those whose way of violence is due to mental defect rather than through calculated choice. But I have yet to hear of one. And until I do, the unecessarily violent have to be removed from our society somehow.

    The alternative is more victims.

    Darkmage (4de99c)

  21. Would lopez and his crinimal loving bleeding hearts say the same thing if one of their went and robbed them and then beat the crap out of them or what would they say of these released crinmals commit more rapes and molest some kids? Frankly i hope that thug tries to rob someone who blows his brains out

    krazy kagu (711c87)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0848 secs.