I think we should make a list of those busted for drugs.

[Harlow]

I was reading the drug bust story and it is so sad the way the criminal justice system is.

By the time they finally go to trial, they are out and busted again.

This is from the current Herald News Site.

• Tiffany D. Wolf, 25, 125 Cherry Ave. Apt. No. 2- one count each of delivery and possession of heroin;
• Heather M. Wills, 25, 755 Washington Ave.- one count each of delivery and possession of heroin;
• Dominique D. Nepa, 25, 125 Cherry Ave. Apt. No. 2- one count each of delivery and possession of heroin;
• Nikki Christine Oakes, 28, 123 Bald Eagle Ave.- one count each of delivery and possession of heroin and
• Carl Hardy Jr., 23, 124 Cherry Ave. Apt. No. 1- one count each of delivery and possession of heroin.

This time, only Heather Wills is a repeat offender having been caught in the July 16, 2005 bust. What also turns out to be a shocker is her address is 755 Washington Ave. Isn't that the Washington Ave Apts where the last couple drug busts were in Tyrone?

Hmmmmmm??

Happens to be the same address of Lindsey Wills was welcomed into custody by the men in blue during June 2004 and July 2005 raids. The July 2005 bust, she was arrested while residing in the Blair County Jail.

People like this are destroying their lives but also destroying the lives of many throughout Tyrone.

Please ask Jerry Stern, ask Larry Sather, ask Sen Jubelirer to impose stiffer drug sentances.

If the District Justices and and the courts had the power, they would enforce it.

Lets hear what you think should be done to the drug dealers in Tyrone.

[BeachBiker]

I was reading the drug bust story and it is so sad the way the criminal justice system is ... Lets hear what you think should be done to the drug dealers in Tyrone.

So - what changes?

The avatar I changed to for a few days shows a drug bust scene, on Pennsylvania Avenue just off 10th Street, in downtown Tyrone.

From over 25 years ago.

I was the one in the picture opening the patrol car door.

It may as well been a revolving door...

NOTE: Yes, that was the famous Snyder Township "Dukes of Hazard" cruiser in the photo.

[tammy]

I believe they should be tougher laws but also they should have the help they need while being placed in the county jail.
I was incarcerated for nine months for my first offense but I can say that it did help me think of what I was doing to myself and my family.
There is a drug and alcohol class but only if you choose to go to this class.
My nine months in there I couldnt believe the revolving door they had.
You would think that you would learn a lesson not once but twice and even again.
I am one of the lucky ones. I am clean and I am never going back.
I pray that someday the herion will leave Tyrone and everywhere else of course.
I do not live in Tyrone any longer but I do wish I had the chance to speak to the young kids in the school to tell them what it can do to their lives and their families.

[Mainegirl]

Good for you Tammy!! I too believe while in jail that there needs to be a program in place to get these people clean and sober. Otherwise whats the use. They are going to do the same thing again and waste our tax dollars for court hearings etc. - It should not be up to the inmate to refuse treatment! I also agree that there needs to be tougher drug laws.

[Robbuck]

Congratulations on your recovery Tammy.. I wish you all the best .. But I am a firm believer in the three strikes and you're out way of thinking.. How many times does someone have to beat you over the head with a stick before you get it??? Not you, personally, just speaking generally.. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what constitutes a repeat offender.. And then the penalties get a lot stiffer.. Sorry but I guess that's just my opinion..

[tammy]

Thank You.
Please never be sorry for voicing your own opinion.
I do believe there should be tougher laws as I have said but also I believe that they should make it mandatory that the drug offense users get help.
You know when I was in Blair County it is sad to say but there was ( or still is ) a judge who had a nickname for letting off easy. But of course I do not remember the name. Even if I did remember I feel it wouldnt be right to slander this person.
I do have one question though to any police force ( or ex-)?
Why may I ask do the court system or the police force send the " users" to jail BUT let the dealers free on bail. I do understand that they need them to help by "setting" people up. But do they realize that they are also using and dealing at the same time while on " the job ".
But I do believe the good will come to those who wait and the trouble shall victor sooner or later to those who deserve.
I am not hear to speak of judgement towards anyone..I am just voicing my opinion.

[BeachBiker]

... I do have one question though to any police force ( or ex-)? Why may I ask do the court system or the police force send the " users" to jail BUT let the dealers free on bail. I do understand that they need them to help by "setting" people up. But do they realize that they are also using and dealing at the same time while on " the job " ...

I only have a moment to post some response to this (been a hectic last few days), but a few quick points:

- It's the court system - the judge/magistrate, not the police - who determines and sets bail; although a recommendation from police and/or attorneys can be considered.

- Bail is only to best ensure that the defendant will show up for the next court appearance. Whether bail is offered or not, and how much, is based on the perceived trustworthiness of the accused by the person setting the bail and the recommending officials.

- Generally, in most circumstances, the dealer/supplier is more likely to have have the finances to post bail - AND usually has more to lose if he/she fails to appear for future court appearances.

- If the dealer fails to appear, he/she usually finds it difficult to continue to be "in business" with the already-established territory and buyers because someone probably knows where to look for him/her. A common user who fails to appear can be much more unpredictable as far as whereabouts and therefore difficult to locate.

- Dealers tend to think more rationally, many are rather "clean" of significant drug use that may effect their reasoning capabilities and judgement. Many (not all) users have substance-abuse dependence or influence that hampers these same qualities, resulting in unacceptable decisions and continued irresponsible behavior.

- It's actually usually more beneficial to have the users, not dealers, to "help setting people up". And users are generally more cooperative than the dealers, as they are more likely to make a "deal" of their own in exchange for a current or later court-determined favor or break. Dealers are traditionally more dependant on drugs for their income, whereas the users are traditionally more dependant on their income for drugs.

[Beck]

But doesn't the court system realize that a slap on the wrist isn't going to stop the urges that an opiate user has for the drug? An addict can be in jail for months and step out the doors and be already looking for drugs.. or already have it lined up! This addiction isn't cured over night, its a work in progress all your life.
I give Tammy all the credit in the world. She lost alot, but will in the end gain so much more by being clean, being a survivor and helping others along the way. I wish her many many blessings.
I, as a parent, have watched what opiate addiction does to everyone that is in contact with the addicted. Its a sad and scary story. I'm proud to say our family has just celebrated OUR 3rd year clean, but we don't forget where we use to be, that way where we are now is even sweeter.

[banksy]

Slap on the wrist, 3 strikes your out, etc.... I think one point we tend to forget is the cost to incarcerate an inmate. We can't lock everyone up.... I think a little hard labor would help... wouldn't solve it, but would help.... plenty of work can be done that would not detract from the current employed workforce and elimiante jobs.... clean along side the highways, grow crops to feed the prison, etc... some people become jailed so long it's the only thing they know... what do you expect them to do when they come out...

....this is a d*mn hard thing to solve, and I will be the first to admit I have no idea how to break it. At some point a family may have to turn their backs on a son, daughter, etc if they do not come clean... this isn't my idea, this is what I observe on A&E's intervention. The pain caused to the sober part of the fmaily is tremendous.... who knows if this even works... this is tough to solve.

[BeachBiker]

This all refers to the concept of "restorative justice", whereby various elements are viewed, considered, and practiced regarding the criminal justice process toward apprehended criminals. The main elements are how incarceration and other methods of restraint and limited/movement/accountability are related to deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, etc. There are entire books, constant scientific studies, and large organizations that study this concept and contribute their findings to actual practice.

One important consideration is that the criminal justice system involves various interactive parts, usually in a progressive sequence. Until the accused actually goes to trial, he/she is not usually ordered, required, or under any obligation to receive any kind of substance abuse problem assistance. Many folks refuse it if it is available and offered while awaiting trial - either out of denial, concerns that it implies guilt ( to include at the advice of their legal counsel), and other reasons. Many liberal-leaning advocacy groups actually oppose encouraging the accused to undergo any counseling or treatment at this phase because they claim that it is "forced" on them against their will - thus involuntary - and a violation of their civil rights. NOTE: I'm not saying that I agree with this - but many court systems (especially in certain regions of the country) are heavily infested with this influence.

Therefore, substance abuse programs to inmates are often the result of POST-trial agreements or imposings. The ones that are traditionally the most effective are those that continue after release from custody; but at that point, the person receiving the assistance may not be accountable in any way for a committed continuation of the program. Even if they are still accountable, such as in a probationary situation, the person may be difficult to monitor or may continue/resume the substance abuse in a less visible and/or detectable manner.

A few remarks about Banksy's comment of "I think one point we tend to forget is the cost to incarcerate an inmate" and it's following context:

I do agree about the gainfully active functions (picking up trash, etc) they can perform that don't effect the regular employment of others.

However, a common scientific study and standard Criminal Justice college-classroom activity is to perform a very comprehensive and practical comparison of the costs of incarceration versus alternate punishments and dispositions to the accused. It is important to separate tracking of first-time offenders versus recidivists (repeat offenders).

I am restricting and focusing the following to situations of DRUG offenders and those who may commit other crimes when influenced by drug activity.

For first-time offenders, it is usually more expensive to incarcerate them, but is considered a worthwhile investment because it often influences, determines, and sets measures whether or not the offender may repeat. This is even more vital if proper substance abuse assistance is a part of that incarceration.

When ALL costs are included, the results is almost exclusively determined that it costs more to keep the REPEAT OFFENDER free in society than incarcerated?

Why? Because the term "all costs" includes the expenses involved by the various public safety agencies, courts, and businesses/individuals who are effected by the criminal activity. Such expenses involve the costs of emergency and investigative services, court proceedings, actual losses to persons and businesses - basically the overall total financial impact the repeat offender has on others. This total cost almost always exceeds the compared actual and total costs of just supporting the incarcerated offender, even if any public assistance payments to family members are included.

Whether drug-related crimes or not - in most comparisons, the cost of incarceration may range from an average $20,000 to $40,000 per year, while the total costs to all persons and entities from a repeat offender free in society usually start at around $50,000 and often average closer to $100,000 per year. A lot depends on the level of jurisdiction (small town versus county versus state, etc) and the type of crimes committed.

One other comment, regarding the statement "some people become jailed so long it's the only thing they know... what do you expect them to do when they come out... ":

As I mentioned, elements of restorative justice to impose on offenders include retribution (punishment), rehabilitation, deterrence (demonstrating to that person and others that crime doesn't pay), etc. The final and last-ditch element of restorative justice is the "removal of the individual from society". In other words, the crime was so severe or patterns of crime so continuous that other elements of restorative justice didn't or won't work; the only procedure to ensure the protection of society from this person is to keep him/her out of the community. They don't get out unless they have demonstrated that they are no longer a threat to society. However, that is one of the hardest things altogether to determine - when the person has had so much "focused" time to put on a good act and pretend that he/she is ready to return.

Return - to which? Productive member of society, or to resume the prior criminal conduct?

All the scientific study in history may have determined the above content as "trends", but has yet to determine how to read someone's mind.

We just have to play the odds, while balancing the impact that all actions have on what is beneficial and detrimental to the offender AND the general society alike.

[banksy]

Where's the Cliff Notes version?

[BeachBiker]

Where's the Cliff Notes version?

You have to contact me through my university email account for that... :thumb: :devil:

[jayestewart]

Just so you know...rule of thumb after 500 words most of us don't read what is being said.

[banksy]

That's generous... i stop around 350. *lol* Great post!

[BeachBiker]

Since we frequently go down "memory lane" here, perhaps I should recommend (to those journalists of challenged attention spans :devil:) the Cheech and Chong "Evelyn Woodhead Sped-Reddin' Co-arse".

Especially to those TAHS grads who had Mrs. Lloyd for English and were tempted to get up and leave after she spoke 500 words (or 350) ...