By By Suzanne Monk / managing editor
August 25, 2002
A while back, I wrote a column about two men arrested in a series of armed robberies mostly of fast-food delivery people.
They were young, they worked as a team and their armed robbery indictments made up the majority of all armed robbery indictments issued by a Lauderdale County grand jury in March.
One of those defendants pleaded guilty this week in Lauderdale County Circuit Court. He entered his plea "in the blind" which essentially means he is throwing himself on the mercy of the court. The lightest sentence he can get is three years, the heaviest is life.
He remarked in his petition to plead guilty, "The other guy with me had the pistol but I was with him."
Like this matters.
All told, this young man was indicted in seven armed robberies that occurred over a three-month period last year. He pleaded guilty to two, five were dismissed as part of a plea bargain.
The worst of it is that the damage doesn't stop with the primary victims. The second-hand victims were nowhere near the scene of the crime  the husbands, wives, friends, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children of the people this young man attacked. These are the people who will deal with the victims' fear of going out alone after dark, their loss of self-esteem, their nightmares, anxiety attacks and anger.
Grandmother's plea
There are second-hand victims in the defendant's family, too. I don't know how this young man feels about what's happened, but I will tell you he's tearing his grandmother up.
She wrote Circuit Judge Robert Bailey a letter pleading for leniency. It reads, in part:
This concerns an inmate in the county jail … who is my grandson. Sir, he is not a street person because I took care of his financial needs until he was 16 years of age. That was when he went to work …
Sir, I am requesting that (he) be put into a work program and rehabilitation. I am concerned about our black men inmates who serve time, then return back into society without any skills. Sir, they are a drag on the community.
Please, sir, in the name of our Lord and Savior, do your best to help (him). He needs a mentor …
To the defendant, sitting in the county jail, waiting to be sentenced: The only reason your name does not appear in this column is that your grandmother probably didn't realize that her letter would become a part of the public record.
I didn't see any reason to embarrass her. She cares about you and doesn't deserve to be victimized any further you've done a good job of that all by yourself.
Victimizing the victim
Last week's column didn't have names in it either and for a similar reason. It was about a fight between a husband and wife that resulted in both being arrested for domestic violence.
Mississippi's first victim-sensitive domestic violence statute went into effect in July 1995. It's referred to as the "mandatory arrest law." The idea was to protect the victim by not making her (it's usually a "her") press charges against an abusive spouse or boyfriend.
The law required officers to take a good look at the people involved in a domestic dispute. If injuries were visible, the aggressor had to be arrested. No choice. And, it was the police not the victim who pressed charges.
This meant two things: 1) the victim did not have to fear retaliation for pressing charges because she had no choice in the matter; and 2) she couldn't be sweet-talked or intimidated into dropping the charges once the abuser made bail.
But, it also meant the cops had to arrest everyone who appeared to have caused an injury. If both husband and wife had marks, both were arrested, and in these situations the abuser can often show a mark where his victim struck out in self-defense.
In last week's trial, police officers testified that it was the wife who called 911. She had lots of bruises and scratches even as they arrested her. She brought the photos to court. The husband had shown arresting officers scratches on his chest and said she put them there.
Municipal Judge Lester Williamson Jr., predictably enough, found the wife not guilty. But, meanwhile, she had been arrested, embarrassed and made to endure a public trial.
People in social welfare circles call it "revictimization."
Principal aggressor' law
Leslie Payne, executive director of Care Lodge, called first thing Monday to tell me about changes to the mandatory arrest law that went into effect July 1.
The biggest change is that the amended law empowers law enforcement officers responding to a domestic dispute leeway to evaluate what's been going on. They still have to make arrests if there are visible injuries, but they are now allowed to identify a "principal aggressor."
If they think one person is more at fault than the other, only that person goes to jail. It might have made a difference to the wife in the example.
It will be interesting to see what effect the change has on local arrests. Someone from Care Lodge will probably be in the courtroom to see it. Payne's staff attends domestic violence trials and advocates for victims but they also offer help to abusers.
The husband in last week's trial was fined $300 and sentenced to 10 days in jail. But, the judge said he would reduce the fine to $100 and suspend the jail time if the husband completed Care Lodge's Family Violence Intervention Program.
Let's hope he does.