RAPISTS WERE ON "STAYED" SENTENCES

CATCH AND RELEASE

Rapists, Sentenced Today, -- Alleged Racine Child Molester, too, -- Committed Crimes While Jail Sentences Were “Stayed.”

By Michael Horne

Two adults involved in the gang rape of an eleven-year old Milwaukee girl on September 9^th, 2006 were sentenced to prison today by Judge Jeffrey A. Wagner, who handed down a stiff 25-year sentence to Freeman Coral Gurley, 40, and a 15-year sentence to Darnell Chaney, 18.

Unlike other judges who had faced the two defendants in other recent cases, Wagner did not order the prison time “stayed.”

This represents a change in the fortunes of Freeman Gurley. He had been sentenced to two years in prison on February 8^th, 2006 on a cocaine charge by Judge Joe Wall. But Wall “stayed” the sentence, which provided that while Gurley was free he was to avoid the drug culture, seek education or employment. The judge even gave Gurley 3-1/2 years to get a G.E.D. That’s a fast track to success for a forty-year old!

Since Gurley was not in prison, it could be argued, he was free to join the others when they raped the girl last summer.

A similar situation prevails for Darnell Chaney. He faced Judge William Sosnay on December 6^th, 2005, also on cocaine charges, and was sentenced to a year in the House of Correction, which would have put him also behind bars at the time of the rape, had Judge Sosnay not stayed the sentence. He was also ordered to stay away from drugs and to get an education, which seems to be a theme here.

The same goes for Joshua Dyess, who was charged with the recent sexual assault on a 6-year old boy in a Racine school. He was “serving” two consecutive jail terms totaling one year for THC and bail jumping when he was arrested for the most recent offense. These sentences were imposed by Judge Dennis Berry on June 2^nd, 2006, who also ordered that Dyess get a high school or equivalent diploma, submit to treatment, keep away from alcohol and controlled substances. The jail time was stayed. Sound familiar?

The intent of the “stayed” sentences is to be a deterrent to criminal activity, and probably is in some instances when the malefactor takes responsibility and follows the court’s order. Violators know that if they make a slip-up, the state can throw them in jail or prison. However, it did not seem to have the desired effect in the three cases above, and I wonder in how many others?

I have a call in to District Attorney John Chisholm to discuss whether his prosecutors are finding a trend among judges to “stay” sentences, and if they have noted an increase of cases they must try of criminals that other judges had sentenced – then released. Is it still advisable for judges to “stay” the course for repeat criminals?

[Update -- March 1st, 2007-- This letter from Assistant District Attorney and Judicial Candidate Chris Liegel offers insight into the sentencing process:

Michael,

I think you are missunderstanding stayed sentences. When you see "stayed
sentence" it means the defendant was placed on probation. Under the law
probation is not a sentence. Therefore, the first words out of the judge's
mouth when he/she is going to place a defendant on probation is "I'm going
to stay a sentence of XX years" (or I'm withholding sentence). The next
words are, ". . . and I'm placing you on XX years of probation."

A stayed sentence tells the defendant what his sentence will be if his
probation gets revoked. A withheld sentence requires that the defendant
come back to court and face the judge who will determine the sentence. Some
judges like the stayed sentence because the defendant knows what he's facing
if he screws up. A stayed sentence also avoids an additional hearing down
the road. Other judges prefer to withhold sentence. This way they can have
hearing to determine what went wrong on probation and sentence accordingly.

Chris Liegel
Assistant District Attorney

(c) 2007 Michael Horne