Sat 29 Mar 2008
[KR: It is unclear from the story whether the three people on parole are foreign-born and legally in the United States. Does this kind of "creative sentencing" noted by the AP violate equal protection?]
Pa. Judge Sentences 3 to Learn English
March 27, 2008
WILKES-BARRE, Pa. (AP) — A judge known for creative sentencing has ordered three Spanish-speaking men to learn English or go to jail.
The men, who faced prison for criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, can remain on parole if they learn to read and write English, earn their GEDs and get full-time jobs, Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said.
The men, Luis Reyes, Ricardo Dominguez and Rafael Guzman-Mateo, plus a fourth defendant, Kelvin Reyes-Rosario, all needed translators when they pleaded guilty Tuesday.
“Do you think we are going to supply you with a translator all of your life?” the judge asked them.
The four, ranging in age from 17 to 22, were in a group that police said accosted two men on a street in May. The two said they were asked if they had marijuana, told to empty their pockets, struck on the head, threatened with a gun and told to stay off the block.
Attorneys for the men said they were studying the legality of the ruling and had not decided whether to appeal. One of the attorneys, Ferris Webby, suggested that the ruling was good for his client, Guzman-Mateo.
“My client is happy,” Webby said. “I think it’s going to help him.”
The judge sentenced the four men to jail terms of four to 24 months. But he gave the three men, who already had served at least four months, immediate parole. Reyes-Rosario remains imprisoned on an unrelated drug charge.
Olszewski ordered the three to return with their parole officers in a year and take an English test. “If they don’t pass, they’re going in for the 24 (months),” he said.
Olszewski is known for outside-the-box sentencing.
He has ordered young defendants who are school dropouts to finish school. He often orders defendants to get full-time employment. But he also has his staff coordinate with an employment agency to help them find the jobs.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer the men are “legal residents.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/17079016.html
April 1st, 2008 at 10:47 am
State judges generally have great discretion to fashion “creative” sentences, even when, as here, the crime and the punishment are not directly matched. The article itself appears to have an error; it says the judge gave defendants “immediate parole.” Granting parole is the job of a parole board. I’m guessing the author meant “probation.” In any case, because of the great leeway state judges have to fashion sentencing, it is not clear that this creates constitutional issues.
There are some highly attenuated claims one could attempt - forced speech, cruel and unusual punishment, due process - but all are highly likely to fail. The sentencing provides a choice, that choice allows avoiding jail time, and judges are given wide latitude. A potential claim may arise if in the future, one of the defendants fails the proficiency test, and his failure was due to a learning disability or some other mental/intellectual challenge As for your specific concern re: Equal Protection, this does not easily fit an EP framework. The group disadvantaged by the law or policy has to be identifiable as a suspect class under the 14th Amendment. Here, the judges policy isn’t directed, at least on its face, at non-citizens v. citizens. It is directed at a group of non-English or poor-English speaking individuals.
That category has never been found to be a suspect category under the 14th Amendment as race, gender, and national origin have been.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.