For the last few weeks, I have shared my opinion on local criminal justice cases in our community. I have shared my opinion and compared some difficult reads. But – my intention is to bring awareness to the fact these types of cases are not just happening in Goshen County. 

Remember the statistics of plea deals and agreements we talked about a few weeks ago? Two separate sources reported that 90 to 98% of federal and state criminal court cases are settled out of court. This is a HUGE problem in our justice system – not just out our back door here in Goshen County but the entire United States shares the same crippling problem.

Let’s look back at the broken deterrence theory once more. Remember, it’s defined as the theory that criminal penalties do not just punish violators but also discourage other people from committing similar offenses. Basically, it’s the “Let’s make an example out of you,” portion of criminal justice. The “punishment” should be so uncomfortable we, as the good folks, don’t want to commit the crime, right? 

It should also be so uncomfortable the criminal doesn’t want to commit the crime again, right? 

The fair majority of us were told what the consequences were when we broke a rule as a child. Most of us learned quickly, if we do something we aren’t supposed to, we have a consequence our parents will enforce upon us. The severity of the crime was often equivalent to the severity of the consequence and vice–versa, the two countered each other well. 

Don’t eat dinner – Don’t get a snack. No big deal.

Fight with my sister – sit in the room, holding hands, and tell each other why we love one another. By the way, that was the worst punishment ever…. being so mad at your sister and having to tell her reasons you love her…without being superficial. PAINFUL. So, of course, I was rarely the instigator in our childhood disagreements. The punishment or consequences, as I like to call them, were so uncomfortable to me, that I didn’t want to break that rule – ever! 

Mom would say no tv for a week if I didn’t clean my room. I didn’t like tv anyway so the punishment – the consequences of my actions and behaviors – really never mattered much to me. I would break that rule in a heartbeat as many times as I could get away with.

Sure, take away the tv if I don’t clean up my room…. I don’t need that anyway. But you take away the ability to crawl on the back of my horse whenever I wanted and boy, it was a different story. That consequence was as close to chopping off my right hand as you could get for an eight-year-old. 

Now, let’s take it back to these cases we have been talking about here locally. 

Are we really using consequences as we should or have they just become a cookie-cutter form of punishment? Have we really looked at what will be the BEST way to prevent the crime from happening again or are we too set in stone with laws that are clearly an outdated design?

The Wyoming State Statutes specify the potential penalties for different crimes. The penalties normally include imprisonment, fines and in some cases both. Our law designates these consequences for each felony on a crime-by-crime basis, not by a class system like other states. 

In a crime-by-crime basis, each crime’s statute defines the specific sentencing range. California is another example of a crime-by-crime sentencing state. One advantage to crime-by-crime sentencing is the fact if can offer clarity. It can also make the consequences of a particular offense easier to understand. On the flip side, it can lead to sentencing inconsistencies across state jurisdictions.

A class-based sentencing jurisdiction groups crimes into categories – felony and misdemeanor – and uses sentencing guidelines to determine the penalties for each class. This classification system dictates the potential sentencing ranges for the criminal offenses – instead of specific penalties for each crime. 

Now, let’s take a look at Patrick Jernigan’s recent arrest.

According to the detention center booking page, Jernigan has been charged with two violations of Wyoming State Statute – 35-7-1031 (a)(i) and one violation of statute 35-7-1031 (c)(ii). Three felony violations of the Wyoming Statute Title 35; Public health and safety. 

35-7-1031 (a)(i) – manufacturing or delivering methamphetamines – imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or fined not more than $25,000, or both. TIMES TWO. Nearly 25 grams of methamphetamine. To put that into perspective, a small paperclip weighs about one gram… Jernigan had nearly five teaspoons of meth. 

35-7-1031 (c)(ii) – possession of a controlled narcotic substance – imprisonment for not more than ten years, fined no more than $10,000, or both. In his possession, Jernigan had prescription bottles with torn-off labels. 

So, by calculation, we should be looking at no more than 50 years prison time, no more than $60,000 in fines, or both for a sentence for Jernigan.

The consequences of these violations, as they are typed on this paper, are enough to keep the good folks from committing the crime. The penalties, as they are written, are enough to even keep some of the criminal offenders from committing this specific slew of crimes.

But are they enough to keep this offender from committing another drug-related offense? 

I don’t have a doubt about it, Jernigan will see some prison time for his violations. But unfortunately, it will not be anywhere near the projected maximum consequences printed on this paper. 

In prison, Jernigan will be placed into programing where he will more than likely attend a form of inpatient treatment for his drug addiction. He has probably already been sentenced to treatment of some form in the past, looking at his criminal background. But we’re going to sentence him to that treatment again and hope and pray Jernigan has hit rock bottom because we know his therapy will not be successful until he is ready for it to be successful. 

I don’t have a doubt about it, Jernigan will be required to pay some money towards the expense of his violations. This could come in the form of paying for the public defender, his pre-sentencing investigation report or the fees associated with his Addiction Severity Index assessment and/or more. But, again, unfortunately, it will not be anywhere near the projected maximum consequences printed on this paper. 

Matter of fact, chances are, the total dollar amount of fines and fees Jernigan will be ordered to pay will more than likely barely cover the paper his public defender will use to enter his change of plea hearing some weeks later, once he decides the state will make a deal if he just goes along with it. But he will at least be ordered to pay some.

Is it really beneficial to sentence offenders on a sliding scale? Or should our laws be blacker and whiter? 

You don’t eat dinner – you don’t get a snack. 

There’s no way to stretch the consequences of not cleaning up your plate. 

Dinner or nothing. 

Should our criminal justice system be more concrete when giving a possible sentence? 

You don’t eat dinner. 

Mom saves it for later. 

Dad sneaks you a cookie and you learned absolutely nothing more than how to manipulate.

Shouldn’t we be showing the offender how terrible it really is instead of threatening them with a consequence that’s flexible? 

The deterrence theory suggests people are less likely to engage in negative behavior if they know there will be a consequence for their actions and behaviors. 

The two main purposes for consequences and punishments are retribution and prevention. 

What do we prevent when the consequences are wishy-washy, flexible and debatable? 

Dinner or no dinner – the justice system isn’t a balanced meal.