Prosecutors defend plea agreements

7-31-15 Oregon:

In Oregon, a Clatsop County man was convicted of sexual abuse of a child in the first degree, bribing a witness and tampering with a witness. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail, 60 of which would be served under alternative sanctions.

His case led to a discussion about plea agreements.

The Daily Astorian published a letter from a friend of the convicted man who pointed out that an innocent man was essentially forced to take the plea, and thereby prevented from defending himself against the charges.

I completely understand the horrendous nature of the accusations that were made against him, and the sensitivity that must be exercised in child abuse cases, but these were accusations that Mitchell was never given a fair chance to defend himself against. Any honest attempt to get at the truth of the matter would have involved interviewing the alleged criminal, investigating his background, and speaking with character witnesses. This never happened.

I have no idea if the defendant was guilty or innocent but guilt and innocence too often have little to do with whether a defendant takes the offered plea agreement or not.

The Daily Astorian followed up by publishing a guest column written by Joshua Marquis, the Clatsop County district attorney, and Dawn Buzzard, the senior assistant district attorney, in response to the letter.

Letter: Accusations trump fairness

7-31-15 Oregon:

Jack Harris re Mick Mitchell

I have waited for the justice system to run its course before publicly commenting on the case of Mick Mitchell and the child abuse accusations leveled against him. From the beginning, I have been very disappointed in the unfairness of many of our local institutions.

The district attorney’s office inflated the accusations at every opportunity, originally charging him with crimes that could have resulted in over 300 years of prison. Even after the most serious of the charges were dropped, they continued to use the blunt sledgehammer of a “choice” between the possibility of spending 180 years in prison with a trial, or taking a plea for 60 days of alternative sanctions.

The fact that the district attorney was willing to settle for a couple months over the original 300 years speaks to the weakness of their case. Not once was Mitchell given an opportunity in court to tell his side of the story.

Guest column: Plea negotiation serves a greater good

8-17-15 Oregon:

Like the vast majority of criminal cases of the approximately 1,000 convictions that occur annually in Clatsop County (and elsewhere) the case did not go to trial but was the result of negotiation — what is sometimes called a “plea bargain.”

Late in July a well-known local man, Michel Thomas Mitchell, was sentenced after pleading guilty to charges of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, bribing a witness and tampering with a witness. The victim, who was not identified, was under 12 years old when most of the molestation occurred.

Like the vast majority of criminal cases of the approximately 1,000 convictions that occur annually in Clatsop County (and elsewhere) the case did not go to trial but was the result of negotiation — what is sometimes called a “plea bargain.”

If cases were not negotiated we’d need triple the number of prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges that serve our county’s justice system. Far from being some sleazy “deal” (the headline on the story read “Plea deal reached on sex abuse allegations”) a plea negotiation trades the certainty of a conviction for the state, the finality for the victim, and a known and usually bargained for resolution for the defendant. There is nothing “alleged” about his actions. He stands convicted of three serious felonies, one of which will require him to register as a sex offender.

Sex offender therapy: A battle on multiple fronts

4-1-2014 Oregon, National:

Working with individuals with sex offense convictions is a specialized area of counseling. There are also “specialties within the specialty” when factoring in the different venues for treatment, including programs in prison, in private practice (often with those on postprison supervision or probation) and in mental institutions. The individuals within this population are generally quite different, and the dynamics are made even more complex when considering whether the offenders are adult males, adult females (yes, there are female sex offenders) or juveniles. The research on each population varies considerably. There is a paucity of research on female sex offenders, and research is still somewhat lacking (although growing) on the ever-complex juvenile offenders.

Sex offender therapy is challenging regardless of the nature of the clients, and other factors also come into play. There exists the constant issue of resistance to treatment, particularly when treatment is a condition of probation or parole. Criminogenic thinking pervades the scene, and counselors must be on guard for the often subtle signs of that mind-set. For instance, individuals convicted of sex offenses can be highly manipulative, not only with their therapist but also with others in their therapy groups. Power plays, deflection, grooming and lying are a few examples of the criminal thinking that may be evident. Many offenders will also present with a virtual encyclopedia of thinking errors. Often topping the cognitive distortion list are victim stance (“This label is unfair”), minimization (“All I did was grope her”), justification (“We’d had sex before and she didn’t complain”) and entitlement.

In addition to the cognitive distortions and potential for criminogenic behavior, counselors may also have to contend with other factors such as addictions, co-occurring disorders and, of course, shame, guilt and incredibly demeaning self-talk. The ultimate goal of sex offender therapy is relapse prevention, based first upon accountability and assumption of responsibility for offensive behavior. But when all of these factors are thrown into the mix, the counselor is often faced with denial on several levels: denial of facts (“It wasn’t me”); denial of intent (“I was drunk”); denial of impact (“She didn’t seem to mind”); and denial of the need for treatment.

Research supports the best practice of sex offender therapy being conducted in groups whenever possible. The peer support, which includes challenging denial and other thinking errors, is invaluable in treatment and also lends itself to generally better outcomes. Part of the reason for this is that so many sex offenses are based in secrecy. Bringing offenses out into the open is generally conducive to discussion and to the cognitive elements that are so important to reducing recidivism.

Of course, group therapy adds still other elements for the therapist to consider, including properly populating groups (for example, matching risk factors, genders and ages) and building and maintaining effective group dynamics. Sex offenders don’t want to talk about their “stuff” in front of others. Consequently, providing a safe environment and building trust are staples of effective sex offender therapy groups.

While this represents a formidable enough battlefront on its own, sex offender therapists are faced with another perhaps even more challenging front — that of our society, including our lawmakers.