You know, the one thing I haven't really read in this thread, though earcutter and Hirlau briefly touched on it, is that this woman has been ARRESTED 396 times, not CONVICTED. If I recall correctly, you are still innocent until proven guilty in America (though an argument is being made that that is becoming untrue). We simply don't know how many convictions this woman had.
The police can arrest you for any infraction, but it is up to a judge (or jury, depending on if you invoke your right to a trial by a jury of your peers) to decide your fate. Now, think about the word "judge". That, to me, implies discretion and weighing the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular situation in which a crime was allegedly committed. Furthermore, if a law is on the books, in certain states you have what's called "Jury Nullification". For those of you who don't know what that is, it's when a jury can find you not guilty of committing a crime, even though the law and evidence demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that you in fact have. If the jury feels that the statute is is not valid, and should not be considered a crime, they can find you not guilty and at the same time actually change the law. It's all dependent on discretion.
The most common demonstration of using discretion when determining if a crime has been committed is stealing a loaf bread. If the intent was filled with malice, then absolutely the person should be judged as guilty of committing a crime. If the person was starving, and having no other option, stole it to provide for themselves and their starving children, would you send that person to jail?
Don't focus to heavily on the details of that illustration. I know that we have plenty of choices to help us get on our feet in this country, and I really feel that if you put your mind to anything you can accomplish it with enough time and determination. I was simply trying to show how a judge or jury might look at the particulars of a case involving a homeless woman who had been arrested 396 times. I certainly imagine she has seen the inside of a jail cell (not a holding cell) more than once, however, I can certainly see how it's possible she hasn't been locked away permanently.
For all we know, the woman is harmless and simply lazy. She may have decided it's better to be a freeloader than have to work. Or maybe she's mentally ill and incapable of being a responsible and productive member of society. And, as such, while sleeping in the doorway of a local business was arrested for loitering or trespassing. Maybe in her state of mental illness, she thought the officer was demon coming to kill her and assaulted the officer. Maybe she was coherent and has no respect for law or authority, and spit in the officer's face. Either way, she now has an assault charge added. Then, since she has no address, she is never informed of her court date for the civil infraction (not criminal) she got for jay walking two months ago. Well, a failure to appear in court charge IS a criminal infraction, and when she's confronted about sleeping in the doorway, she's now charged with failure to appear.
I could continue ad nauseum, but I think you get my point. If not, I'll spell it out plainy... We simply don't know all the facts, and cannot make a sound, valid and final judgement of this woman or the circumstances surrounding her freedom.
We can offer opinions all day long, and I suspect that most of our assumptions are probably correct. But it's merely that... suspicion.
If the law of the land says that I'm to be considered innocent until proven guilty, maybe I should do the same in my judgement of this woman. I'm not saying she's innocent or guilty, only that I need more info before I can make that call.
Oh, and I know I'm opinionated, and truly mean no offense to anyone. I apologize if my words do offend... I'm simply stating my beliefs and viewpoint, and welcome input from different viewpoints as well.
