DA Supervision = conflict of interest?

[SMS]

This should stimulate some good discussion (or not).

Reference this article: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-watch-di...m-called-conflict-of-interest/article/3631305

In short, in accordance with Oklahoma law, District Attorneys can prosecute an individual and then fund their office by having the individual they prosecute be sentenced to "DA supervision". That program requires the prosecuted individual to pay the DA a monthly fee in return for being "supervised" by the DA's office instead of being supervised by the Department of Corrections or a private probation office.

I'm no softy on crime/criminals but I have to agree that I see the potential for conflict of interest when the office doing the prosecuting serves to profit from said prosectution. Of course this all requires a judge to sentence the individual to DA supervision, but in many cases judges often rubber stamp the DA's recommendations during a plea deal.

I saw this play out in county when the DA decided to beef up his budget with DA supervision funds...it was not pretty.

What do y'all think?

 

[HMFIC]

I think it has the potential to run awry in many ways.

Do they have any specific scenarios that they are suggesting this would work well for? What problem are they trying to solve exactly?

 

[NikatKimber]

... What problem are they trying to solve exactly?

Lack of funds.

 

[MLRyan]

Yay! More conflict of interests in the Government.

 

[SMS]

Lack of funds.

Exactly...it's purely a funding mechanism, in exchange for arguably weaker supervision of offenders than is currently offered by DOC or private probation providers.

One county DA I know of just pulled a coup and is taking over supervision after the District Judge (who didn't agree with DA supervision) left. This DA's office isn't staffed for it and he's actually strong arming the company that previously oversaw supervision into giving his office training and assistance for free in exchange for him throwing a bone to them once and a while in the form of "letting" a few people get sentenced to traditional DOC/Private supervision....just enough to keep the company from having to close up shop and let all their employees go.

So right now, criminals who used to have to report to their probation supervisor weekly/monthly, be subjected to random drug tests, and comply with treatment and employment requirements are basically just showing up to drop off a check once a month.

 

[HMFIC]

Ya on the surface this sure does sound like a bad idea for citizens and civil rights. I'm sure the DA's office is watering at the mouth though.

Why exactly are they low on funds?

 

[SMS]

IMHO I don't think it's as much a problem of being low in funds as it is the DA offices seeing the possibility of making more funds. That's the trouble with .gov in general though...it'll never want to do more with less, or even enough with enough...gotta raise the budget!

 

[RidgeHunter]

I think in the overwhelming majority of non-violent crime cases, prosecution decisions are not made with punishment, rehabilitation or public safety/interest in mind and this can be added to a long list of evidence supporting that.

But I'm pretty far out there, so take it FWIW.

 

[HMFIC]

Scary and provides way too much opportunity for abuse at the expense of citizens (both those accused and their rights and the rest of us who have to worry about criminals who should be locked up running around still).

 

[MLRyan]

The world runs on money...