Raging against various machini

It's been a little while since I've had a legitimate rant unrelated to fighting wild animals or Brittney Spears rap, so here it goes: Why Probation Revocations are a Gigantic Crock of Shit.

Out of all the areas of criminal law I practice, nothing pisses me off to the extent of a probation revocation. In a system that is supposed to be based on fairness, presumption of innocence, and access to the justice system, probationers facing time after revocation have nothing resembling these ideals. It starts with the agents and their god-like power to revoke for any "rule violation" they see fit. Rule #1 for all people supervised in the State of Wisconsin is that a probationer shall not "engage in conduct that doesn't benefit the goals of rehabilitation." If you're thinking this rule can apply to any behavior at all, then you are indeed correct. Here's a short list of "violations" amounting to revocation in my fine counties: (1) "antogonizing" a neighbor's dog by barking at it, (2) using profanity, (3) Failing to walk 29 miles to the probation office after a vehicle breakdown, (4) kicking dirt on the fender of another's car, (5) drinking one beer while on probation for an unrelated financial crime. The vagueness factor becomes exponential when agents are allowed to contribute their own rules. In a recent case, this included banishment from the entire state of Wisconsin except a town of 1200 for calling his mother a "fucking bitch." His agent reasoned that this would help "focus a job search." Guess what, he was revoked for remaining unemployed.

The unlimited power serves to enable agents and the Supervisor/Lord of the probation feifdom to do whatever they want. So who are these agents? Surely people trained in social services, willing to provide compassionate, objective, and helpful services in the interests of rehabilitation? Not quite...they tend to be people who went to police academy and failed to get jobs as cops. Security Guards fall into the same personality category. In our case, the office is overloaded with younger women who have never been drunk, can't stand the sight of blood, and have no clue whatsoever on what the real world is like. Now, I'm not bashing women agents per se. I happen to love women. It's just that these women are sheltered bitches who assume disorderly conduct is an execution-worthy offense that requires forty hours a week supervision in order to prevent the rise of the next Hitler. Plus, they're unattractive.

So when the agent makes the decision to revoke a probationer, they approach them without counsel and ask them to revoke themselves without a hearing. Afterall, it's easier that way. If the probationer refuses, they have to wait an average of 65 days for a hearing. 65 days in jail without Huber privileges, plus another thirty or so for a written decision, then time spent waiting for sentencing after revocation. Nevermind the fact that Wisconsin law requires a hearing within fifty days...the Department of Hearings and Appeal claims that statutory law does not apply to administrative procedures. But at least the wait is worth it for a fair hearing, right?

Define "fair." Well, fair is a hearing with unlimited hearsay admissibility against your client in which the Department can prove by a preponderance that some rule violation occurred in front of an Administrative Law Judge. Nevermind technicalities like juries, rules of evidence, or motion practice. Afterall, suppressed evidence, and jury acquittals are still admissible to fuck a client over. The jury acquitted you of the alleged violation? Well, fuck it, we're just going to presume you're guilty and revoke you in any case. You want to appeal? Well, you can write a letter to the Department of Hearings and Appeals, which, by the way, is not bound by Wisconsin statutory law binding the Department of Corrections. Should you decide to complain that judges didn't follow Wisconsin code requiring them to weigh credibility, don't worry, as long as the administrator "thinks" the judge thought about credibility, it's all good. If your administrative appeal is rejected, you're entitled to an entirely discretionary, entirely paper judicial review, which statutorily denies briefing or oral argument.

You might assume that a recent bad experience led me to this rant. Well, you're right. I just had a client revoked for entirely free speech that his agent found offensive and sent off to serve his three year imposed and stayed sentence. The "real" Judge dismissed the agent's identical criminal complaint on the subject because, as it turns out, the First Amendment allows people to use profanity. As a matter of fact, I regularly use the same language at the bar, in front of friends, and on this blog. As the ALJ began describing our case as "meritless," I turned to my client and whispered "This is ridiculous." Enraged, the ALJ asked me what I had just said. I stated: "I said, 'This is ridiculous,' Judge." He told me I was free to appeal his decision, like the "others I lost on." My mind flashed red as I contemplated whether it was time to be disbarred for throwing a javelin through a judge's chest.

Of course, I plan on appealing it, but I've never won one of these. The sad fact is, this dipshit appears within his rights to revoke my client. Increasing supervision caseloads and actuarial tables have effectively supplanted any chance of the fair shot people on probation deserve. This is one case where I've lost complete faith in the justice system, and I don't blame my clients for doing the same. It would be easier for people to become outraged at this facial injustice if probationers were all a bunch of cute puppies carrying fruit baskets, but that's not the case. They're criminals, so everyone acquiesces and assumes they got what was coming to them.

I remember my old mentor telling me about the turning point in his legal career...the day he decided to stop being nice, said "fuck it," and went in every day from then on as a person who didn't care about offending anyone, so long as he was a zealous advocate. Well, I passed the point of saying "fuck it," but now the rage has been elevated to a whole new level. I feel my newly ordained conquest can best be described by the following exchange from Point Break:

Angelo Pappas: "So that's it? You want to nail the bank robbers and be a big hero?"
Johnny Utah (me): "Definitely."

In other news, I dreamt that a cat was following me around and attacking whenever I turned my back.

Go away, Monkey

As some of you know, I tend to love things that others consider...bad. So I figured that I would love the show "Cavemen," styled after the Geico commercials. I gave it five minutes of my life. I'd do anything to get those minutes back.

MAN, was that show fucking terrible. A show only has a few minutes to get your attention for the length of the series. Seinfeld began by talking about the useless button on the top of a shirt, the O.C. featured Ryan Atwood aiding and abetting a car theft only to end up in juvie, and Nip/Tuck's first episode was just about the greatest thing God ever created. Cavemen started like a regular sitcom...a bad sitcom. None of the jokes were funny in the traditional sitcom sense, or the novelty caveman sense. I won't even rehash the horrible five minute introduction, but for God's sake, if you don't have a great intro, at least play to the generic strengths of the series: Prehistoric Man. I didn't hear one bit of caveman humor throughout the entire introduction.

So in the immortal words of Nip/Tucks first episode, i give any television producers reading this post some advice: "I think we need to hire a full time psychologist to screen better." [As you tie hams to a corpse to feed it to alligators]