Via The Batavian's news partner WBTA:
The former treasurer of the Oakfield Fire Department has pled guilty to a charge of petit larceny, in connection with the disappearance of thousands of dollars of department funds. Samantha Hilchey, 31, entered her plea in Oakfield Town Court.
She has already paid $6,000 in restitution.
The remaining amount will be determined when the state audit of the fire department’s books is completed.
District Attorney Lawrence Freidman says whatever that amount is, Hilchey will be required to pay.
She faces up to a year in jail when she is sentenced on Jan. 5th.
Hilchey was arrested by State Police in June on a charge of grand larceny in the third degree, a Class D felony.
The deal allowed her to plea to petit larceny, a misdemeanor.
I don't like correcting
I don't like correcting people, but shouldn't that read the "former" treasurer? I hope she's not still the treasurer.
Am I wrong or does the law
Am I wrong or does the law prosecutes according to Intent. Stealing $6K in my books is Grand larceny. It doesn't matter if you pay it back or not. If I stole that kind of money and got caught with my hand in the cookie jar,all I would have to say: Me Bad and pay back the monies and have the charge dropped to petit larceny. I am sure this individual had no plans on returning the funds if she wasn't caught.
there have been a couple of
there have been a couple of long discussions on here regarding plea deals and whether or not they dilute the law. People make mistakes. Big ones and little ones. Some use this kind of thing as a wake up call and get themselves onto a better track. Others do not. If she pays the money back and keeps herself out of trouble and doesn't steal again, what's the harm. If she proves that she cannot or will not change, then this will be taken into account the next time, I would hope. I think people should have a 2nd chance, maybe even a third. It all depends on the person and the circumstances. That's the judge's job to decipher.
If she pays the money back and the fire department implements a better oversight system for auditing their accounts, then why do we need to slap her record with a more serious charge?
There's three possible views
There's three possible views of the role of the criminal justice system:
1) It's a tool to punish wrong doing;
2) It's a tool to protect society from wrong doers;
3) it's a tool to reform wrong doers and set them on the right path.
Subset of 3) are restitution to victims.
If you're view of criminal justice is merely of punishment, then you advocate for lengthy jail sentences, the accused held with high or no bail, and every person charged and convicted with the highest possible crime.
This view, of course, is the one that costs taxpayers the most money. Prosecutions become more expensive, public defense costs more money, incarceration costs more money (and more problematic with overcrowding and more discipline problems from people who feel warehoused without hope).
There, are, of course, clearly people who need to be locked up for a long-long time, if not a lifetime, and the roles of 1) and 2) greatly come into play.
But as taxpayers do we really want that with everybody who commits a crime? Do we want the expense?
What about the societal cost of removing people who might otherwise become again, productive, taxpaying citizens. We're kind of double taxing ourselves to lock those people away.
If you could see perfectly into the future and predict what kind person somebody would be after conviction of a crime, would you really want to lock away the person who would never, ever, commit another crime and would be a productive, taxpaying citizen?
Of course, none of us can predict the future, so we have a criminal justice system that tries to make the best guesses it can as who deserves a second, and even third or fourth chance.
From a small government perspective, which is a truly conservative perspective, I don't understand the impulse of "lock them all away and throw away the key."
Well put Howard. Its funny
Well put Howard. Its funny how people can blather about wanting smaller government, but then want anyone who steps out of line thrown in jail. I can't understand that either.
"From a small government
"From a small government perspective, which is a truly conservative perspective, I don't understand the impulse of "lock them all away and throw away the key."
The 'law and order', 'three-strikes you're out' used to be a major chorus in the conservative litany. It used to be not who a pol is to the right of, as today. Or how tough they were on communism, as before. The seventies -- a time of high crime rates -- was an era when a conservative politician had to prove his bona fides by being "tough on crime". It was pretty easy. In the nineties, it didn't occur to anyone then the costs -- how 'three-strikes' and the 'war on drugs' would combine in a perfect storm of state expense, and social disruption.
The good thing is that much of this is starting to be rolled back.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Richard_Nixon_Crime.htm