I can't deny this. When I discuss the human toll of incarceration and how distant we are from the ideals of furnishing rehabilitation in any meaningful manner, the argument you present will still remain. I hear it often from prosecutors who have given up on the carceral enterprise. They'll readily admit prisons don't *help* the criminals but AT LEAST they're unable to hurt anyone while they're there.
My now 23-year-old nephew committed a heinous crime when he was a month shy of his 18th birthday. He murdered at least one woman by strangling her and then burned a 40-unit apartment building to the ground, killing another woman and displacing hundreds of low income families. He's a psychopath who, despite previously admitting to the strangulation and arson, and being caught on videotape with a gas can at a nearby service station and then the apartment building, denied committing the acts at his multiple trials while claiming he was a victim of - get this - incompetent public defense and a corrupt legal system. His public defender, a 30-something woman who seemed like someone I'd have gone to school with, did her best to provide him with representation while he undermined and belittled and berated her at trial. I felt so sorry for her and wrote her an email of appreciation for defending him despite his huge character flaws. She never replied, I think because she was afraid it would hurt his case if she consulted with anyone else. He was ultimately sentenced with 25 years and a chance for probation after he turns 50, but I don't believe he should ever be released. He refuses to admit that he murdered and harmed people, plays the victims, and is a manipulate psychopath. And he is my brother's child. Some people need to be removed from society permanently. Others temporarily. Knowing the difference is an enormous challenge.
Thank you for sharing, that's awful. Defense attorneys know to keep their mouth shut, lest any of their comments get interpreted as either breaking confidentiality or commenting on their client. If I was her I also would not have responded to your email in those circumstances, no matter how effusive the praise was.
I knew I shouldn't have emailed her after I did it! I then became really paranoid it might derail his case, which he kept trying to stall (for years) by asking to change lawyers, claiming mental illness, etc. Being a public defender is thankless. I just wanted her to know that his family appreciated her work, even if we believed he needed to be put away for a long time. Thank you for providing this service and reflecting upon it for us.
Which is at least something. It could be worse -- like the case of Jose (or whomever) that you linked, where much money and a lot of time was wasted, and the guy died at least as fast as he would have were he turned loose and some time and money were saved.
Though -- I guess this guy could die in prison, given his history. Though (again) keeping him away from alcohol might save him a few years.
I felt bad for the guy. Don’t think there’s a nearby possible world where he can get ahold of his own life. Wish we had some place other than prison to send folks like this so they can have a greater measure of freedom while simultaneously being stopped from killing themselves or hurting others.
But anyone not like me better watch their goddamn back!
Edit for clarity and because the joke above from me is dumb: I do agree with the sentiment you’re expressing but wish we had something more like low level security sanitariums. This guy isn’t a rational actor as described.
Your posts are always interesting, Yassine, and they always make me very grateful for my career path of being a civil litigator. (I very occasionally have to deal with pro se parties, but fortunately mostly as opponents.)
IANAL: I have a “pro-se” story that was a disaster but the twist is that this is a happy (or at least amusing) story. I met my uncle for the first time when I was 5 when he was released from doing 5 years in a minimum-security prison in 1989; for smoking a lot of crack and “making threats” to some official.
Almost 5 years for this always struck me as unusually punitive; my dad (tax attorney) later told me it was because uncle Jim was so out of control he not only insisted on “representing himself” but it was like a comedy of errors where he would object by standing up and yelling “that’s horseshit!” with my dad scrambling to try to get him to shut up. He wouldn’t stop so that’s why had all this extra time on; it was a mess!
But he ended up turning his life around to such a degree that I’ve actually never known him as anything but sober and responsible; in a way it’s the only “exception” addiction isn’t a joke because he was able to shield my (still very young) siblings and me from the reality of his situation that whenever we would ask he would just bullshit these “crazy and funny” stories that I didn’t realize WHY he didn’t tell us until we learned about drugs in DARE and stuff;
He died two years ago; there was only thing of his I REALLY wanted that he had hanging up over his bed for 4 decades; i had it framed “nice” to hang up in the “master-bathroom” https://imgur.com/a/AEbFnng
It's tangenital to your story here, but I was in court for a traffic ticket a few years ago and in the case that was before mine, the judge was explaining to a criminal defendant that he wasn't actually entitled to a public defender because he earned too much money, and that he'd have to hire a private attorney. How is that determination made, do you have to submit financial statements to prove that you can't afford an attorney? Is it possible to be stuck in a zone where you don't get appointed an attorney at no cost, but you can't really afford to hire one yourself?
Every jurisdiction does it differently. Where I practice, they give out public defenders like candy. We already have a well-funded apparatus, and the vast majority (90%+) of defendants are going to qualify anyways, so everyone is presumed to get one from the beginning. Every defendant has to "screen" for eligibility after the first step, but the required form is super basic and just asks people to self-report their income and no one verifies anything.
You absolutely can be stuck in an in-between phase where you don't qualify, but hiring one is financially ruinous. For the private criminal bar around me, their bread and butter is almost nothing but DUI cases. I can do 95% of DUI cases almost in my sleep, but for a lot of defendants they've never had criminal charges before so they're scared, and they don't think twice about dropping $5k-$10k to hire a lawyer that will do a few hours worth of work. The private bar is all too happy to indulge their fears.
I can't recall the specific locale, but I remember reading about some place in Oklahoma or Louisiana or whatever-a where the courts had stringent exacting standards for who does and does not qualify for a public defender, with staff members who combed through financial statements before reluctantly doling one out.
Lawyers are really expensive (especially GOOD ones) and for many small places that lack state funding, public defense funding understandably turns into a thorny municipal funding debate. Doubly so when the public's appetite for prosecution does not match their enthusiasm for the rights of the accused.
Of course he has a name, but coming up with fake names for everyone is a lot of work. I'm not sure what else I could have included in my retelling of this story? I never met the victim, and saw only snippets of him on bodyworn video as cops tended to his wound.
It's his job to lighten the circumstances in his client's favor and it's the prosecution's job to do the opposite. It's really dumb how defense lawyers are treated as evil for doing their jobs.
I think you misunderstand my point. I never claimed that he was violent as a reaction to trauma, but rather that he was highly-vigilant because of his trauma. That vigilance caused him to address ambiguously threatening situations he encounters on the street too far in one direction. I didn't get into it here, but Boris had some sort of interaction with the guy he stabbed, and I'll never know exactly what transpired thanks to the fog of war.
Either way, while I can be highly persuasive in person, I am more than accustomed to losing as a public defender. And as others have said, I'm the defense attorney here, not the victim's advocate. That doesn't mean the pain the victims endure isn't real.
That was my read of it. He’s not a guy who was making a choice between right and wrong and choosing wrong. He lives in a crazy kaleidoscope world where nothing he does makes sense on the outside. He’s a danger to society and we have to do something but it’s not like he’s out there with clear vision choosing to be a dick on purpose.
He’s a defense attorney, not the victim’s advocate. His job is to give his client the best, most persuasive legally permissible defense he can.
I wish we’d stop treating lawyers as evil for doing their job. Even the Devil gets an advocate.
On the gripping hand I agree we need to get the garden shear stabber off the street, but state of mind is an element of a lot of crimes and I think it’s fair for a jury to make a distinction between “cold blooded killer” and “drunk guy off his nut” in determining which crime he is guilty of.
I am *loving* these stories. More, more!
Really, really love these stories, and your writing.
(My law professor called the hearsay calzone “marsupial hearsay”!)
Well, at least when he’s in prison he won’t be stabbing innocent passers by.
Very interesting story- thank you!
I can't deny this. When I discuss the human toll of incarceration and how distant we are from the ideals of furnishing rehabilitation in any meaningful manner, the argument you present will still remain. I hear it often from prosecutors who have given up on the carceral enterprise. They'll readily admit prisons don't *help* the criminals but AT LEAST they're unable to hurt anyone while they're there.
My now 23-year-old nephew committed a heinous crime when he was a month shy of his 18th birthday. He murdered at least one woman by strangling her and then burned a 40-unit apartment building to the ground, killing another woman and displacing hundreds of low income families. He's a psychopath who, despite previously admitting to the strangulation and arson, and being caught on videotape with a gas can at a nearby service station and then the apartment building, denied committing the acts at his multiple trials while claiming he was a victim of - get this - incompetent public defense and a corrupt legal system. His public defender, a 30-something woman who seemed like someone I'd have gone to school with, did her best to provide him with representation while he undermined and belittled and berated her at trial. I felt so sorry for her and wrote her an email of appreciation for defending him despite his huge character flaws. She never replied, I think because she was afraid it would hurt his case if she consulted with anyone else. He was ultimately sentenced with 25 years and a chance for probation after he turns 50, but I don't believe he should ever be released. He refuses to admit that he murdered and harmed people, plays the victims, and is a manipulate psychopath. And he is my brother's child. Some people need to be removed from society permanently. Others temporarily. Knowing the difference is an enormous challenge.
Thank you for sharing, that's awful. Defense attorneys know to keep their mouth shut, lest any of their comments get interpreted as either breaking confidentiality or commenting on their client. If I was her I also would not have responded to your email in those circumstances, no matter how effusive the praise was.
I knew I shouldn't have emailed her after I did it! I then became really paranoid it might derail his case, which he kept trying to stall (for years) by asking to change lawyers, claiming mental illness, etc. Being a public defender is thankless. I just wanted her to know that his family appreciated her work, even if we believed he needed to be put away for a long time. Thank you for providing this service and reflecting upon it for us.
Which is at least something. It could be worse -- like the case of Jose (or whomever) that you linked, where much money and a lot of time was wasted, and the guy died at least as fast as he would have were he turned loose and some time and money were saved.
Though -- I guess this guy could die in prison, given his history. Though (again) keeping him away from alcohol might save him a few years.
I felt bad for the guy. Don’t think there’s a nearby possible world where he can get ahold of his own life. Wish we had some place other than prison to send folks like this so they can have a greater measure of freedom while simultaneously being stopped from killing themselves or hurting others.
Well, we used to have state mental institutions.
The sad thing is that there is nowhere he can live or be without being really hard on everyone around him.
I think that is the real ultimate cause of homelessness. Emotionally exhausting mental illness.
Yes, 100%.
A person who is living on the streets has usually burned though all of their friends and family members who were willing to put them up.
But anyone not like me better watch their goddamn back!
Edit for clarity and because the joke above from me is dumb: I do agree with the sentiment you’re expressing but wish we had something more like low level security sanitariums. This guy isn’t a rational actor as described.
Take my like for the Darkness that Comes Before reference.
More wonderful work, Yassine! Thank you! I’ll eagerly anticipate your next piece!
I cannot express how much joy it brings me to see a Second Apocalypse/Prince of Nothing fan in the wild.
Your posts are always interesting, Yassine, and they always make me very grateful for my career path of being a civil litigator. (I very occasionally have to deal with pro se parties, but fortunately mostly as opponents.)
I'm definitely subscribing.
IANAL: I have a “pro-se” story that was a disaster but the twist is that this is a happy (or at least amusing) story. I met my uncle for the first time when I was 5 when he was released from doing 5 years in a minimum-security prison in 1989; for smoking a lot of crack and “making threats” to some official.
Almost 5 years for this always struck me as unusually punitive; my dad (tax attorney) later told me it was because uncle Jim was so out of control he not only insisted on “representing himself” but it was like a comedy of errors where he would object by standing up and yelling “that’s horseshit!” with my dad scrambling to try to get him to shut up. He wouldn’t stop so that’s why had all this extra time on; it was a mess!
But he ended up turning his life around to such a degree that I’ve actually never known him as anything but sober and responsible; in a way it’s the only “exception” addiction isn’t a joke because he was able to shield my (still very young) siblings and me from the reality of his situation that whenever we would ask he would just bullshit these “crazy and funny” stories that I didn’t realize WHY he didn’t tell us until we learned about drugs in DARE and stuff;
He died two years ago; there was only thing of his I REALLY wanted that he had hanging up over his bed for 4 decades; i had it framed “nice” to hang up in the “master-bathroom” https://imgur.com/a/AEbFnng
It's tangenital to your story here, but I was in court for a traffic ticket a few years ago and in the case that was before mine, the judge was explaining to a criminal defendant that he wasn't actually entitled to a public defender because he earned too much money, and that he'd have to hire a private attorney. How is that determination made, do you have to submit financial statements to prove that you can't afford an attorney? Is it possible to be stuck in a zone where you don't get appointed an attorney at no cost, but you can't really afford to hire one yourself?
Every jurisdiction does it differently. Where I practice, they give out public defenders like candy. We already have a well-funded apparatus, and the vast majority (90%+) of defendants are going to qualify anyways, so everyone is presumed to get one from the beginning. Every defendant has to "screen" for eligibility after the first step, but the required form is super basic and just asks people to self-report their income and no one verifies anything.
You absolutely can be stuck in an in-between phase where you don't qualify, but hiring one is financially ruinous. For the private criminal bar around me, their bread and butter is almost nothing but DUI cases. I can do 95% of DUI cases almost in my sleep, but for a lot of defendants they've never had criminal charges before so they're scared, and they don't think twice about dropping $5k-$10k to hire a lawyer that will do a few hours worth of work. The private bar is all too happy to indulge their fears.
I can't recall the specific locale, but I remember reading about some place in Oklahoma or Louisiana or whatever-a where the courts had stringent exacting standards for who does and does not qualify for a public defender, with staff members who combed through financial statements before reluctantly doling one out.
Lawyers are really expensive (especially GOOD ones) and for many small places that lack state funding, public defense funding understandably turns into a thorny municipal funding debate. Doubly so when the public's appetite for prosecution does not match their enthusiasm for the rights of the accused.
You should pick an image that is more realistic, not some cliche from 100-200-300 years ago.
It's a good plant Peter
Of course he has a name, but coming up with fake names for everyone is a lot of work. I'm not sure what else I could have included in my retelling of this story? I never met the victim, and saw only snippets of him on bodyworn video as cops tended to his wound.
As a British reader, I am so happy that you took the trouble to name the dysfunctional sociopath "Boris".
Real life Boris had a slavic name despite nowhere near being slavic
Whoops. I thought I would only have this name on my own substack.
It's his job to lighten the circumstances in his client's favor and it's the prosecution's job to do the opposite. It's really dumb how defense lawyers are treated as evil for doing their jobs.
I think you misunderstand my point. I never claimed that he was violent as a reaction to trauma, but rather that he was highly-vigilant because of his trauma. That vigilance caused him to address ambiguously threatening situations he encounters on the street too far in one direction. I didn't get into it here, but Boris had some sort of interaction with the guy he stabbed, and I'll never know exactly what transpired thanks to the fog of war.
Either way, while I can be highly persuasive in person, I am more than accustomed to losing as a public defender. And as others have said, I'm the defense attorney here, not the victim's advocate. That doesn't mean the pain the victims endure isn't real.
That was my read of it. He’s not a guy who was making a choice between right and wrong and choosing wrong. He lives in a crazy kaleidoscope world where nothing he does makes sense on the outside. He’s a danger to society and we have to do something but it’s not like he’s out there with clear vision choosing to be a dick on purpose.
He’s a defense attorney, not the victim’s advocate. His job is to give his client the best, most persuasive legally permissible defense he can.
I wish we’d stop treating lawyers as evil for doing their job. Even the Devil gets an advocate.
On the gripping hand I agree we need to get the garden shear stabber off the street, but state of mind is an element of a lot of crimes and I think it’s fair for a jury to make a distinction between “cold blooded killer” and “drunk guy off his nut” in determining which crime he is guilty of.