Friday, May 22, 2009

Abuse - Molesters and jail time


David Mandel (Director of Ohel)
in the September 2007 Jewish Observer

That most perpetrators do not go to jail is not a Jewish phenomenon. Former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro was noted for her aggressive pursuit of pedophiles. In six years of sting operations, 1999-2005, she succeeded in the arrests of 111 men with a 100% conviction rate. The overwhelming majority received probation with only eight perpetrators sentenced to jail (New York Times, 10.13.06).

However that New York Times article noted that Pirro's conviction rate was inflated by plea bargaining which minimizes the likelihood of going to jail. Other district attorneys had a higher rate of prison sentences

While Ms. Pirro’s press releases repeatedly pointed out that the crimes were felonies punishable by up to four years in state prison for each count, a review of the cases shows that the overwhelming majority of people received sentences that let them avoid extensive jail time.

In most nearby counties, prosecutors have had a higher rate of felony convictions in similar cases, because Ms. Pirro allowed nearly one in five defendants to plead down from felonies to misdemeanors, according to prosecutors’ statistics.

Only eight of the men prosecuted by Ms. Pirro were given outright prison sentences by judges, according to records from the district attorney’s office. The rest, 93 percent, received some form of probation. “In many cases, we asked for jail time and didn’t get it,” Ms. Pirro said.

According to Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the current Westchester district attorney, Janet DiFiore, who has continued the sting program, 54 people indicted in the operation under Ms. Pirro received only probation, generally of five years. Mr. Chalfen said 46 others received so-called shock probation, which called for weekends behind bars.

Two cases went to trial. Both defendants were convicted, but one conviction was overturned on appeal, and the other will be appealed on similar grounds.[...]

Other district attorneys’ offices in counties of comparable size, like Nassau, as well as in larger ones, like Manhattan and Brooklyn, that have prosecuted Internet sex crimes involving the same statute that Ms. Pirro’s office used — attempting to disseminate indecent material to a minor — seem more resistant to bargaining with defendants.

The Nassau County district attorney, Kathleen Rice, said that of the 40 individuals charged by her office since 2001 for trying to sexually entice minors over the Internet, 34 pleaded guilty to the initial felony charge and only one pleaded to a lesser count, harassment. Of the others, one was found guilty, one died and three cases are pending.

“When we have someone arrested on the top count, my general position is, absolutely no pleas,” Ms. Rice said.

Of the 49 people indicted on the felony charge of attempting to disseminate indecent material to a minor in Manhattan between July 1999 and the end of 2005, all but three were convicted on that charge, said Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau. [...]

5 comments :

  1. Sir, I welcomed the opportunity to respond to your blog post as I have a first hand knowledge of the topic/matter.

    I cannot put the first line of your post into context and do not understand what it means "That most perpetrators"...

    In para 2, perhaps other nearby counties had a higher rate of "felony" (although I doubt it) convictions, but they certainly did not have a higher rate of arrests or number of felony dispositions. As a unit of 2 investigators (only one producing results) and two prosecutors, the unit led the state in arrests/prosecutions. Secondly, if you put the operation in perspective of the time (1999-2005), these prosecutions were an emerging, specialized area. Many defendants were "model" citizens with no prior LE contact. Others were younger than 20 with no priors, and some victims of sexual abuse. Judges simply do not "like" to send them to jail.

    In the next paragraph, probation in Westchester has been reported to be worse than a stint in the County Penn. The active supervision and restraints are tough to bear. One defendant CHOSE jail time over probation.

    I wonder why Lucian Chalfen did not provide you with the number of arrests, and dispositions since his boss took office? He seems to have good records on his predecessor's efforts. I'd love to see the DA's stats now that it is an election cycle.

    One of the two cases you cite as having been appealed, People v, Jeffreay Kozlow, Esq. was actually reversed by the Appellate Court, leaving his conviction standing. Subsequently, the NYS Penal Law was amended (brought up to date) as a result of this unit's work. I cannot speak to the second matter.

    In the next paragraph, you use the word "seem". C'mon now...whose perception is that? I'd suggest you work from facts and not perceptions in your book. Let's get some numbers, but remember when you have a few cases a year to deal with as opposed to 20-25, you have more time to invest in going towards a trial.

    New York County's numbers speak to my point above. Westchester had twice the number of arrests as they did with 1 1/2 investigators and two prosecutors. NY County has investigators working with the DA as well as the resources of the entire NYPD. Not bad!

    The case of "Rocky" Robert Sternberg, a Hassidic Jew should be analyzed. This decrepit 62 year old man sent images of child porn to a Westchester undercover, brought his laptop containing thousands more images to a "meet" with a 14 year old boy, and also committed the crime of Att. Dissem Indec Mat Minor. A search warrant at his home in Monsey was met with vocal opposition by his neighbors. At his arraignment, black coats flooded the courtroom in his support. They raised his bail of several hundred thousand dollars in 48 hours! A leader politically pressured the DA (with no result) to lower the bail. (Note: Sternberg fled the country in the 1970s after his arrest on defrauding NYC of nearly 3/4 million$.) The "community" kept up the pressure, and, after his conviction, compelled the Administrative Judge in Westchester to move him from one jail to another that was more "Hassidic friendly". He subsequently broke his probation and fled to South America (hopefully swimming in Piranha infested cesspools).

    While these crimes cross every social and ethnic strata, this case sticks in my mind as an egregious example of misplaced loyalties by a secular community.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lawyer wrote:
    Sir, I welcomed the opportunity to respond to your blog post as I have a first hand knowledge of the topic/matter.

    I cannot put the first line of your post into context and do not understand what it means "That most perpetrators"...
    ======================
    DT responded:

    You misunderstood the posting.

    The first item is a quote from David Mandel published in Jewish Observers September 2007. The indented material is the quote

    I contrasted that with the source of his information - the New York Times which appears in the next series of indented items.

    I was just showing that he apparently misunderstood what the NYTimes was trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No problem. I support your efforts ans hope that my input may provide an insider's view to all of the source matter/comments. I'd like to see a follow-up with Chalfen. As a political appointee (the DA is the poster child for "Politician" after switching parties), his comments must be looked at with a keen eye. The current DA has not lived up to one of her key campaign promises by not doubling the size of the unit. The numbers won't lie. Good luck with the book! ...Lawyer

    ReplyDelete
  4. It doesn't seem to me that he misunderstood all that strongly - the bottom line is that only 8 men landed in jail. Whether it's because she was to quick to plea bargain, or because the courts don't "like" to send these guys to prison, is not really the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. observer 2 said...

    It doesn't seem to me that he misunderstood all that strongly - the bottom line is that only 8 men landed in jail. Whether it's because she was to quick to plea bargain, or because the courts don't "like" to send these guys to prison, is not really the issue.
    ===========
    the point of the NYT's article was that she was not typical. Thus his argument from her is rather strange. She is not representative and yet he cited her as proof.

    Now it could be argued that most people accused of molesting don't go to jail or even most accused - but you can't use her behavior to prove that point.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.