Good thing his services won't be needed any time soon with the lockout.
That's a pretty hefty sentence for a DUI. Does he have a previous record?
Good thing his services won't be needed any time soon with the lockout.
That's a pretty hefty sentence for a DUI. Does he have a previous record?
That's his first DUI.
I read somewhere that this is his 2nd DUI. As many people know, in Michigan, DUIs stay on your record for life. So if you get one at 18 and one at 60, you are hosed.
Come on, that's not fair. She has very strong, and justified might I add, feelings against drunk driving. Can't just call her a bitch, it's not like he didn't do anything wrong. I find it hard to defend J Rose on this one, he got what he deserved. Don't drink and drive and you won't go to jail, it's as simple as that.
"strong, and justified might I add." - Please elaborate and explain what you mean by this statement. Provide a Link, source, etc.? It is SOP on the board to verify and support such comments. Otherwise, what you say in itself isn't justified.
My request is separate from calling the judge names, and separate from Jalen Rose's guilt, neither of which is appropriate or called for.
Maybe I have different opinions than others here, but I believe that a DUI is a serious offense and as such deserves a serious penalty. I don't have a link to back me up on this thought, it's just a moral stance I suppose.
Many people have strong opinions on the issue, and I would say that anyone who feels strongly about driving under the influence is justified in their belief.
Having a strong opinion about something does not "justify" the opinion. Many people have many strong opinions about many things. Whether such opinions are justifiable is not related to the strong emotions attached to said opinions. Case in point: the tragedy in Norway. In his own mind, the actions of the mass murderer were "justifiable." Which is absurd.
As it happens, I don't drink, and it is moronic to drink and drive. But for the judge in this case to sentence in a way that is far out of step with other judges nationally seems questionable. This seems on the face of things not to be right. For a judge to sentence harshly in some particular arena because of friends who have been hurt is a dangerous road to go down.
In fact, my (admittedly limited) understanding of jury trials is that potential jurors are ruled out if they have a strong opinion shaped by personal experience. They are ruled out because their emotional reaction clouds their ability to be fair and impartial.
I half wondered from the post I responded to if the judge had a personal experience with a drunk driver, such that she is going to throw the book at all such offenders. Were this the case, it would seem to me that the judge is incapable of being fair in this particular situation.
Reading through the comments, especially those noting the inconsistency in sentencing the friend of a sister, and also potentially pulling strings for a daughter, one does not get the sense that this judge is "fair and impartial."
I am not arguing that Jalen did not receive a fair and reasonable sentence. However, his sentence does not seem commensurate with similar sentences received nationwide for a similar offense.
Your example of the tragedy in Norway is off base. I think people universally agree that drinking and driving is wrong and I also think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who believe that killing innocent people is morally defensible. In this sense, I guess justification stems from being validated by 99.9% of the population holding this same view.
Perhaps this judge feels that drunk driving is a growing issue in the area and is trying to crack down on it. Maybe she just doesn't think other judges are tough enough. Whatever the reason, she acted within the law and had every right to sentence Rose the way she did. It's not as if she violated the constitution or broke state laws about drunk driving punishment by giving him 20 days in prison. She acted withing the guidelines of the law and punished him how she saw fit.
I don't think she had any personal history with drunk drivers in general and I don't actually know anything about the personal life of this judge and whether or not she is one that you can manipulate by "pulling strings." I was simply saying that she seems to take a tough stance on drunk driving in general which I applaud and in many people's minds is justified. This tough stance doesn't make her a bitch, it makes her a tough judge.
I don't think anyone really has to justify this. It's an opinion. The judge was well within her powers of what the legislature said she could do. She didn't even do the full 93 days like she could have if she wanted to. If anything, people should have to justify why they think a first time offender should get off with a light sentence. Drunk driving is a serious serious crime, and I know people who have died because of it. A person shouldn't have to justify a stance for wanting to punish someone who is guilty of committing a crime.
Does he really need to link the law where it says what the max penalties for offenses are? I'm pretty sure a judge is "justified" to dole out any penalty they see fit within the law. Which was the case here. Not sure why everyone is so upset. Jalen even gets more attention out of it, which I'm sure he doesn't mind.
It is only a second if the second occurred within 5 or 7 years of the first, fyi.
The new law took affect 01OCT10 in Michigan. The first DUI stays on your record for life. It doesnt drop off anymore. I had a friend who received her first DUI in 1994, second in 2002 and third in 2010. Big House here we come......and its not in A2 either.
I'm sorry, but your friend should have figured it out after the first conviction, and if not then, certainly after the second. Most people manage to go through life without ever being convicted of DUI, so I can't feel too sympathetic for someone who manages to get caught three times (which means she probably was driving drunk a bunch of other times).
is to illistrate that DUIs do not fall off after 10 years anymore. I agree she deserved what she received.
Judge Kimberly Small of the 48th District Court sentenced the current ESPN basketball analyst to 93 days, but said he must serve only the first 20 days behind bars. The rest will be held in abeyance if he completes an alcohol awareness program and attends alcohol impact sessions with the victims and survivors of drunken driving incidents during one year of probation.
Also: Free Press article on the judge: Oakland County judge among toughest in nation on 1st-time drunken driving offenders
During High school a bunch of my friends got Minor in posession charges. Judge Kimberly smalls sentenced them all to ONE YEAR of probation and 40 hours of community service, to go along with mandatory alcoholics anonymous courses. Meanwhile far away in another part of southeastern Detroit (Ann Arbor), Judge Small's daughter got an MIP and was sentenced to a mere 6 months probation. I don't usually call people out, but Judge smalls is a power hungry BITCH who needs to be stopped. Here's a link. She also committed purjury a while ago but I couldn't find a link
If you browse through that link it shows how she and other OC judges have been jailing kids who fail to live up to the terms of their MIP probation by claiming contempt of court. Astonishing that we're locking up 18-20 year olds for this silly shit. Meanwhile, Detroit is averaging what a murder a day and don't get started on Pontiac.
but are Oakland County jail/prisons privately contracted? If yes, we all know the next question.
Edit - Google said no still run throught the County Gov.
Lahser. Her daughter went to Andover iirc
It was Andover.
Props to a fellow Lahser Grad. Everyone knew that getting Judge Smalls for a MIP = death.
He's sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but he felt he owed it to them.
Why would someone be terrified of something that is completely within their control? I just don't get that line of thought. The sentence for a DUI could be life without the possibility of parole and it wouldn't fizz me in the least because all I have to do to avoid that...is don't drink and drive. It's pretty simple and the only reason to be terrified is if you don't adhere to the law, and in that instance you deserve what you get.
Surprised the ESPN headline didnt read "Jailin Rose"
Surprised the ESPN headline didnt read "Jailin Rose"
a real pain in the arse. I would hate to go in front of her. On 97.1 yesterday, an attorney called in and said he will not even appear in front of her.
Can you imagine you go before her and your attorney texts you to tell you, "You are screwed...the bitch crazy"
Apparently, you only get off easy with this judge when she knows your sister. I guess the biggest problem in the state are that there aren't really any guidelines for judges. The FREEP had a good series on her this week for those who haven't seen it.
Drunk driving is serious but for most people, I think the shame and the costs of going through the first one are enough to make them think twice.
That is an extremely harsh sentence. For comparison, .012 wasn't even a DUI thirty years ago. It was impaired, but only if you exhibited symptoms. It was at the officer's discretion whether or not to charge the driver.
I guess there's nothing like high-profile "poster child" for a judge to get a little publicity. I hope she makes a mistake and faces her own brand of "justice" someday.
Unless you're a friend of her sister's, that is.
She's like this with everybody. Unless she's friends with your sister. Her daughter was also charged with an MIP (not in her jurisdiction). They had her on 1130 or 1270 the other morning.
Geez. If that's the case, I'm glad we've made some of the progress we have. You talk about those things like it was the good ole days. I hope you seriously don't think we should go back to the days where 0.15 wasn't even enough for a charge and drunk driving was still a crime that was thought of with a wink and a nudge. Drunk driving laws have gotten more serious over time because people actually researched it and studied it and found out it was a terrible thing that costs property damage and even lives. We are in a better place when it comes to drunk driving today.
And this isn't even close to a poster-boy situation. She actually went a little light on Jalen compared to what she's done in the past to others. Maybe because he is a respected person that visibily gives back to the community.
Free Jalen shirts.
If she was truly interested in saving lives and protecting innocent victims, she would review the data objectively that shows extended sentences are not an effective deterrent or rehabilitation tool. She would listen to and implement the recommendations of experts like those at MADD who aren't getting paid and aren't posturing for re-election.
Apparently the most effective deterrent is the ignition interlock system.
Someone needs to rein her in.
20 days in jail for a minor accident on an icy road in Michigan? I don't think it was ok for him to drive intoxicated, but nobody else I've ever heard of with a DUI has ever had this severe of punishment... Unless I'm missing something here, this judge is just batshit crazy...
but I have no problem with it. DUI is a serious fucking offense not to be dealt with by a slap on the wrist.
2-3 weeks for a DUI is pretty insane for a first offense when the standard is usually a couple of days (if that).
maybe the 'standard' need to be restandarized
anything about the judge, and she may very well be on a power trip, but I prefer to presume her thinking goes along the lines of "every DUI will do significant jail time as a deterrent to DUI." One could argue that if more judges did the same, DUIs would decrease.
Read the articles that have been posted.
National research suggests jail time for first-time offenders doesn't influence whether they will do it again.
"The studies show it has no impact," said James Fell, senior program director for the Alcohol, Policy and Safety Research Center in Maryland. "Jail is really only an effective tool if it is used as a threat to make the drunk driver comply with other orders for probation, treatment, community service, alcohol testing."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism agree. The organizations issued a 2006 manual of sentencing guidelines used by drunken-driving courts nationwide.
"The available evidence suggests that as a specific deterrent, jail terms are extremely costly and no more effective in reducing (drunken-driving) recidivism," the manual notes, adding that one study found "two days in jail may have a specific deterrent effect and may be more effective than a two-week sentence ... for first-time offenders."
Instead, the manual suggests several sanctions, including the use of ignition interlock devices that require offenders to blow into a device that prevents the car from starting if the driver has been drinking.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) said those devices are the leading tool in stopping drunken driving.
"There needs to be that threat of incarceration because drunk driving is a crime," said Frank Harris, the state legislative affairs manager for the national MADD office. "But we are finding the most effective way is to have the ignition interlock."
The punishment itself is harsh, and i don't particularly agree with it. However, my biggest problem with Judge Smalls is the prefferential treatment she helped her daughter receieve. You just cannot create double standards like that..
enforcement by police. Also, do you think a person who is drunk will logically think through the penalties of driving drunk? Unlikely.
anyone here thinks DUI is acceptable. However, does EVERY SINGLE first offense deserve jail time? What about all those first offenders who get the other judge and get reasonable sentences.
What is it about HER that makes one DUI worse than another? This woman is on a power trip and should seek professional help. Maybe she needs medication....LIKE MIDOL
Yes, certainly Midol, because menstruation is clearly the issue at hand because men and pre/postmenopausal women are never irrational.
Sidenote: I seriously just don't understand what is so hard about calling a cab, a lot of areas even offer safe ride services. Hell, one time I had a Domino's guy drive us home.
Back in the 80s a buddy of mine would head from Dominick's after a night of boozing to Bell's, place a meatball sub delivery order and catch a ride with the driver. Back then they were open until 4 AM.
A young kid (18 or 19) got his second DUI and state law mandated 90 days in jail for second offense. However, the judge has leeway regarding the specifics of the sentencing. I was a young guy at the time and did not want this kid to spend time in jail, so I got him a job with the Durango Parks Department during the day and he would only have to spend the nights in jail. He lasted one night and took a hard left to who knows where, but I learned my lesson.
This judge probably could have waived all of the jail time, but took the harsh road on Jalen. I wonder what it will do to his career at ESPN?
as someone who has been hit by a drunk driver... i have zero problem with the sentence.
all of you saying shes a bitch, and how rediculous the sentence is, grow up. drinking and driving is one of the easiest things in the world to avoid. there are a million ways to plan ahead, and a million ways to avoid driving after the fact. I love Jalen. Jalen was an idiot in this instance.
20 days is a good amount of time to sit and think about how stupid you were.
are missing the point. The issue is not about how much time a first offender should get, it is about one judge ALWAYS giving jail time and other judges using descretion and common sense in sentencing.
If Jalen went in front of a different judge then he would have probably received probation and counseling. Automatic jail time is over-kill.
I agree that this judge is overly harsh...
But why is automatic jail time not acceptable for driving under the influence?
friend is another issue. It is a political issue to be settled by majority vote or through our elected representatives in Lansing. I dont have an issue with it if EVERYONE were subjective to it.
However when one drunk driver gets a slap on the wrist and the other gets 90 days in jails seems a little un-balanced. A judge using the bench to further her political career is aweful.
We want judges to have discretion. It is an integral part of the justice system. There are some cases that require a judge's keen eye to recognize a person's background, the circumstances of the case, and whether there is a special need to sentence harshly or lightly. These people went to law school and practiced for years. We assume (although not always correctly) that they are in the best position to pass down sentences from their bench, a position that involves them handling dozens of cases per day.
Every case is different. A chart dreamed up by politicians cannot predict a just and uniform outcome for every single defendant that might possibly result. So the legislature tells our judges that they can sentence anywhere between probation and 93 days in jail. The judge did that here, and she didn't do anything wrong. Judges are people too, and they're all different. Therefore they are going to have different insights and biases. Jalen would have ended up with a different sentence in front of a different judge, but such is the risk you take when you expose yourself to the criminal justice system. Equal and uniform justice is impossible, so the best we hope for is that, as a whole, the system will eventually spit out enough cases that average out to a just and orderly society.
I think you are missing the point... you assume she isn't using descretion? Maybe its her descretion that when someon breaks the law in such a way that kills and injures people thousands of times a year, they deserve automatic jail time. As an idiot who has previously driven drunk, and been hit by one, if I were the judge that would be my discretionary choice.
Dosen't pay to drink and drive folks. Twice caught warrants this action my blue friends....just sayin.
Can you imagine what she would have given Daryl Stonum?
"I don't believe people have the right to roll the dice with other people's lives," she (the judge) said. "Not when you get behind the wheel of a 2-ton vehicle."
I don't know about her sentencing with other violations, such as MIPs and such, but she seems right on with drunk drivers
maybe harsh, but thats the only way people will learn. Love Jalen, i know he'll get through this.
I read some of your other posts about getting hit by a drunk driver and thankfully I have no experience with such things, but still agree with your point. I find it astounding how much sympathy a number of posters on this stie have for people who receive DUI's, and I am not just using this thread as a reference. Every time it comes up there are numerous posters squaking about how it isn't that serious and everyone does it.
My conclusion from reading many threads like this in the past is there is a very large number of university aged kids on this site (and even yonger perhaps) because I find it hard to believe that educated adults could take such a sypathetic look at DUI's.
I also agree with another poster who was debating with softball guy about the sentencing. The softball guy said his problem was that her sentencing didn't fall in line with the standard for such offenses and his response was that perhaps the standard was wrong and needed to be "restandardized". Just because something is done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it is right and standards often change with the times, that's just a fact.
Anyway, that was just a long-winded way of saying I agree with you.
It's hard to get outraged over the fact Jalen blew 3 beers on the meter.
Everyday people are driving while sick and on medication and PubMed is full of studies of the "significant impairment to reaction time" that first and second gen antihistamines have on driving (ex: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15049392). To the point where doctors are told not to prescribe stuff because it's been found to completely impair driving ability.
Basically at the same time Jalen was out driving, odds are some guy was driving home from CVS doped up to the gills on prescription drugs. i'm much more worried about that guy sharing the road with me. I see no reason to blow my tax dollars to pay for locking the guy up for 20 days. I'd much rather go pave a road or something.
(To be fair, I pay Washentaw County taxes, not Oakland, so I don't think I'm paying to keep Jalen guy in the can.)
I have no problem with it as long as it is the same treatment for everyone. I posted before I looked into the judge and her history. I just hoped it wasn't to gain attention in the national media.
by the lack of uniformity, not that DUI drivers shouldn't get jail time.
My issue is one of punishment vs. rehabilitation. Given what the studies referenced in prior posts have found, jail time is not an effective deterrent. It would seem that those who want DUI drivers to serve significant time, as Judge Smalls does, talk about deterrence but ignore the empirical evidence or really are more inclined to believe that punishment is what the criminal justice system is for.
That is a huge debate. For really bad people -- those who commit violent crimes such as murder, sexual assault or armed robbery -- perhaps the system serves primarily the purpose of punishment rather than rehabilitation. For the less-than-career criminal capable of rehabilitation, perhaps the system should serve the rehabilitation role. That is not to say that the system should not dole out punishment, but when one adds to the equation the responsibility to use the public's finances effectively as well as efficiently, then perhaps extended jail time is not the right answer for first time DUI offenders.
be out by Sunday.
to be an NBA referee after the lockout is lifted.
Jalen. Braylon. Stonum.
Or does that not apply in Michigan and/or criminal cases. My only experience is in civil shit in Illinois. We can take 1 substitution of judge as a right, as long as it's within some statutory time period.
Seriously. Is it? I feel like I'm missing a trolling image or something.
Wonder what she gives people for texting while driving?