Jalen Rose to serve 20 days...

Submitted by allintime23 on July 27th, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Wow, a harsh sentence clearly to prove a point.

Comments

bryemye

July 27th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

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?

MilkSteak

July 28th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^

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. 

StephenRKass

July 28th, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^

"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.

MilkSteak

July 28th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^

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.   

StephenRKass

July 28th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^

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.

MilkSteak

July 28th, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

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. 

 

FgoWolve

July 28th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^

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.

Mitch Cumstein

July 28th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^

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.

jmblue

July 27th, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^

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). 

Raoul

July 27th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

Detroit News article

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

aawolverine

July 27th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^

I don't think she's the only judge like that there. My friend got one there, and the judge rejected the prosecutor's recommendation, so that he could hand down a stiffer sentence. I do know that he's terrified of getting another one, so maybe there's something to be said for it.

TJ

July 27th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^

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

 

http://winbackyourlife.org/48th-district-court-judges-daughter-arrested-for-minor-in-possession/

goblue20111

July 27th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

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. 

Blue in Yarmouth

July 28th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^

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. 

MGoSoftball

July 27th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

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"

goblue20111

July 27th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

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. 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110725/NEWS06/107250334/Oakland-County-j…

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. 

Tater

July 27th, 2011 at 1:00 PM ^

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.

FgoWolve

July 28th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^

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.

smotheringD

July 27th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^

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.

Lucky1349

July 27th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

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...

goblue20111

July 27th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^

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."

Rather be on BA

July 27th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

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..

MGoSoftball

July 27th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^

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

CleverMichigan…

July 27th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

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.

seksdesk

July 28th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^

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.