Creativity is great for art school but dumb in the courthouse

Guest Post by Morbo

I’m not a huge fan of “creative sentencing.” To me, a judge can do one of three things with a guilty party: Send him to jail, fine him or impose community service.

Some judges would rather devise their own unorthodox punishments. In Painesville, Ohio, recently, Municipal Judge Michael Cicconetti sentenced Michelle Murray, 26, to spend a night in a public park with no food, lights or shelter as punishment for abandoning 35 kittens in two parks. Nine later died.

I happen to like cats a lot, and I deplore what Murray did — but this is still a dumb sentence. The judge seemed to realize that. Murray had been outside about four hours when Cicconetti allowed her to return to jail. The temperature has dipped into the 20s, and Cicconetti said he was worried about Murray’s health.

Murray is not getting off the hook. She must serve 29 days under house arrest, has been sentenced to three years of probation and must pay $3,200 in restitution to the Lake County Humane Society and $500 to Lake Metroparks, reported the Chillicothe Gazette.

The Constitution bans “cruel and unusual punishment.” Sentencing someone to sleep outside on a frigid night is both — even if that person has done something mean and heartless. Goofy sentences like this also run the risk of backfiring. What if Murray had gotten frostbite? She could have ended up suing the county and might have had a half-decent case.

Want creativity in your judging? Look for it in lawful ways. Cicconetti might have fined Murray, put her on probation and sentenced her to work 1,000 volunteer hours with an animal shelter that rescues homeless pets. That experience would have taught her more about the pain and suffering of abandoned animals than spending a night outside.

So you are telling me that we can’t leave GW in the cold for about 5 hours?

  • I’m not a huge fan of “creative sentencing.”

    I’m not either, but I still really liked the episode of The Simpsons in which Homer and Bart were tethered together. Good stuff.

  • They say that she was constantly monitored. Because the night turned unexpectedly cold, they took her out early. I’m not clear on what you don’t like about creative sentencing. I can think of arguments against it, but I don’t think you made them. Just stated you didn’t like it and I guess expected her hanging out in a park overnight should outrage us. Obviously the judge meant for her to empathize with the very kittens she dumped, and having her spend time in that park, feeling like one of those kittens, does sound like something that might get through to a person. Now the working in a shelter idea may have some merit. But then again, putting to death cats and dogs every day might not convince her that she did anything so wrong….

  • I don’t know. I guess my rule of thumb is that if its OK for the military to do it to a recruit, then it should be OK to do it to someone convicted of a crime.

    I’m not talking about a combat situation where someone is taking potshots at you, I mean when you go through basic training at Fort Benning, there are nights they make you sleep outside in the cold or (and more relevant to Georgia in August) without air conditioning.

  • Now that we’re into torture, why not anything goes?
    After all, with the people we torture, we don’t even
    know if they’ve done anything wrong or have any
    information we can wrench from them.

    Let’s start with parking violations. Make them
    march forty miles goose stepping it, teach them not
    to be lazy.

  • >I’m not a huge fan of “creative sentencing.”

    >I’m not either, but I still really liked the episode of The Simpsons in which Homer and Bart were tethered together. Good stuff.

    We must always make exceptions for Springfield. For example, I do not support Singapore’s policy of subjecting vandals to the lash, but I was with the government of Australia that time it wanted to kick Bart in the behind with a giant boot.

  • Ok, 99% of the time, I’m either very moderate or well left of moderate, but now you;ve touched on the one issue where I am a fire-breathing tough-on-crimer. (Sadly, this may indicate I find companion animals to have more redeeming qualities than most people.)

    Some years ago, in a small town in Iowa, a bunch of teens had a little alcohol, broke into an animal shelter, and beat 16 cats to death in their cages with wooden objects (pieces of lumber, chair legs, sticks). Anyone whose mind is wired to do something so bizarrely sick and sub-human is not likely to change – I guarantee one of these losers will do the same to a spouse or a child someday.

    I always thought the appropriate “punishment” if these chuckleheads thought beating cats with sticks was all in good fun was to at least require they pick on cats their own size. Starve the siberian tigers at the nearest zoo for 3-4 days, give the kids their same size sticks back, and toss ’em in the cage. Swing away, stupid f*cking assholes.

    Yes, this is an inexplicable exception to my usual steadfast opposition to capital punishment. But it isn’t really a death sentence if they are tough enough to beat up the tiger, right?

  • This woman lied at every chance. The fact is that people on our Yahoo group gathered information and forwarded it to all the roper people. We had pictures of the cats that she had sent to us that showed the exact same tags as were on the cats that were found in the Metro Parks. Even after her arrest, she was still selling cats on Yahoo…a violation of her sentence. I know for a fact that the Humane Society did NOT refuse to take the cats from her. This woman would take free cats that were offered on-line and sell them. I know people who were at her home and the cats there lived in terrible conditions. She did not get a just punishment and is enjoying her little slice of fame. What a crock!

  • Comments are closed.