Fight ‘Em ‘Til We Can’t

A young man in Evergreen, MT (near Kalispell) is being charged with negligent homicide after a 19-month old girl he was supposed to be watching allegedly picked up the loaded pistol he had beside him on his bed and ended up shot in the head when he tried to grab the pistol back from the child. Whatever happened, this story is a very sad one.

Just two things: First, the JP up there set bond for this young man at $200k; if this had happened in Billings I would not have been surprised to see $500k or more. We’ve seen a couple $1 million bonds in the last year, which is insane.

Second, in light of stories like this, how can anyone seriously argue that the solution to violent crime is for more people to be armed? (E.g., here or here.) I realize the issues are not identical — guns in private homes v. guns in public places such as schools, but still, what seems clear is that more people w/more guns means more deaths.

Coming out of hiding to link to three articles on Billings Municipal Court and its supervised probation and pre-trial supervision practices. The first attempts to give a big picture overview. The second focuses on one person who was subjected to the injustice of pretrial supervision for a misdemeanor DUI charge. And the third examines who is making money from the court’s regular practice of requiring citizens to pay for “supervision” for a multitude of misdemeanor offenses.

This isn’t the first time this court has received this kind of criticism (see also), and it won’t be the last.

This is old news but for the record, the Montana News Association (MNA) ran a story in March criticizing Billings Municipal Court Judge Mary Jane Knisely for ordering too many people to sign up and pay for pretrial supervision. Although I agree that pretrial supervision is being abused in Billings municipal court, at least one of the complaints of the MNA appears to be a bit misguided. The MNA suggest that the statutory authority for pretrial supervision gives the court authority to order such supervision only in PFMA or stalking cases. The MNA writes that:

Judge Mary Jane Knisely regularly orders defendants charged with non-PFMA or stalking-related offenses to pretrial supervision, which costs them, easily, hundreds of extra dollars, in addition to the costs they have to pay, if they are found guilty.

The only statutory authority for pretrial supervision (as far as I know) comes from 46-9-108(1)(f), MCA, where it is listed as one of many conditions a court may impose in order to “reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required or that will ensure the safety of any person or the community.” Thus, the statute does authorize pretrial supervision for any bailable offense.

That said, it is absolutely true that far, far too many people who face charges in Billings Municipal Court are being ordered to submit to pretrial supervision, and it is also true that the private pretrial supervision agencies charge unconscionable fees for their “services.” The MNA’s other criticisms of these private agencies — e.g. that they bully and threaten their clients and conduct random UAs and BAs w/out authority to do so (in order to make more money, no doubt) — certainly seem accurate, as well.

UPDATE: See also: Pre-trial supervision fees unfair and counterproductive