Several years ago I got in a little trouble and was placed on DA supervision for 1 year. It was 50 bux a month so I paid 100 a month and didn't even have to go in there the remaining 6 months. Never had a drug test never any questions just drop off the check and go. It is all about the money
It does beat the alternative I'm sure. I'd gladly pay $50 a month instead of lockup.
In your opinion, was what you did worthy of even being placed on supervision? In other words, is it something that could have and maybe even should have been deferred anyway with a probationary period or at the most community service?
In other words, I'm wondering how real the potential is for the DA taking $50 a month instead of just a 'slap and on your way' or picking up a little trash.
OR
Was it the other way around where you were very lucky this option existed instead of spending jailtime?
OR
Was it fully appropriate and just the right level?
This started a few years ago because the DOC would not supervise probationers for misdomeanor offenses. The DA's got a statute passed so they could supervise these cases rather than let them be unsupervised.
It has since "morphed" into also supervising felons and it seems that the majority of probation supervision is now being done by the DA's offices. I don't believe that there are any education or training requirements for the employees that do the supervision.
The DOC probation officers are required to have a college degree and training in supervision of offenders.
It has since "morphed" into also supervising felons and it seems that the majority of probation supervision is now being done by the DA's offices. I don't believe that there are any education or training requirements for the employees that do the supervision.
The DOC probation officers are required to have a college degree and training in supervision of offenders.
I wasn't gonna get any jail time but my work schedule is pretty crazy and didn't want community service so I guess the 600 bux wasn't so bad
There's also a provision for supervision to be done by a private company and it's working pretty good in more than a few counties (Lincoln, Pott., Cleveland and one or two others) misdomeanor, felony, and pre-trial release. Probationers get random drug tests, weekly/monthly in-person reporting, home visits etc....and nearly the entire bill is paid for by the offender not the tax payer. But it all requires the DA and Judge's cooperation and agreement....in some of those counties the DA's are starting to see $$ and want a piece of the money pie and are trying to shut down the private entity.
In that scenario, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I'd gladly pay 600 to get out of community service hours too and don't think that poses any danger to the community.
I guess the potential for abuse exists. Let's hope it doesn't get out of hand.
Its all about the money. Thats all they want is money.
It may be about the money for the DA's office, but I think this is an option given to the criminal by the DA in order to give the criminal a chance to avoid having a petition/charges filed. If they fail to complete the terms given to them, then the DA can proceed with the court process. Well thats how it is in the Juvenile system anyway, so I assume this is basically the same thing. They call it a derrered file or deferred prosecution agreement.
For some of the older cases it was like that EviL, for bogus checks and stuff, but the latest waves of DA Supervision are actual convictions/plea deals as a result of actual charges wherein the offender receives probation and DA supervision as a sentence.
So you have a legal arrangment where the DA who does the prosecuting serves to profit from the prosecution and sentencing of an individual AND the same DA oversees the punishment/rehabilitation of the individual he prosecuted. Can't see how that isn't conflict of interest.
So you have a legal arrangment where the DA who does the prosecuting serves to profit from the prosecution and sentencing of an individual AND the same DA oversees the punishment/rehabilitation of the individual he prosecuted. Can't see how that isn't conflict of interest.
Last edited:
Similar threads
