Thread: How is this possible?

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.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't remember hearing or reading about Jesus saying stuff like 'blessed are the rich', or 'work hard to better your life's lot', his preachings seem to revolve around 'help those who are worse off than you', 'do not judge the others', 'do not worry about worldly things', 'if you want to be my follower you would help the least among you'....


May be if that's not their charter they should get out of the business of associating themselves with Jesus? Because as I pointed out above his teachings are pretty much about the stuff you denounce and think the church has no business with. Not to mention the central doctrine of the mainstream christianity in this country is that god is supposed to completely change people - take killers and rapists and the worst scum and turn them into the nicest people you've ever met.

And, please, don't tell me america used to offer more opportunities 75 years ago than it does now. May be you should take off the pink glasses when you look at how things were 75 years ago - if you happened to have the wrong race or to pray to the wrong god, no matter how hard you tried you were screwed, period. Read some books or even newspapers from back then and you'll get an idea about what life looked like through the eyes of the haves, listen to some folk songs of the time and you'll know how it looked from the side of the have nots.

Gugi,

First, lets stay focused here. When I suggested a comparison of life 75 years back to today, I made no mention of personal opportunity or fortune. That is a much more complex scenario. Go back and read what I wrote. And with that, I'll spit those words you put in my mouth.

Second, I don't know if YOU are a Christian or not. But if you are, your education on the matter seems to be completely different from my own. I'm not here to preach to anyone but my upbringing in it was a lesson in personal choice, free will. The church will not, can not completely change people. Jesus himself could not do that. And we believe this because we believe in free will. Its up to you to make the change. You can be shown the way but its up to you to walk that path. And just because I don't believe in GOVERNMENT providing all of these services doesn't mean that I don't find room in society for them. America is perhaps the most generous and giving countries on the planet when it comes to charitable contributions. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't denounce these things. I simply believe that its not the business of government to involve itself in this. Why? Because government can not be trusted to do the right thing with power or money. No one knew that as well as Jesus himself. The Romans may have "washed their hands" of the whole business but they crucified him none the less. Government was corrupt and self serving then and remains so today. All of these social services and programs are now used for political purposes and less for the actual benefit of society. AND, this doesn't even begin to address the question of whether we can pay for any of it.

Originally Posted by jhenry

What you say has a bit of truth to it. But the article does say, near the bottom of the story, that Ms. Miles has been in and out of mental hospitals during her life, which suggests that she has been diagnosed with some type of unspecified mental illness. Before the 1960s, she would have been institutionalized. However, since then the policy of de-institutionalization of the mentally ill--considered more humane and cost efficient at the time--and depending solely on out-patient medication to control mental patient behavior, which they don't always take as well as cuts to social services may be contributing factors to her story.

I don't necessarily see her story as proof that society has no standards today. As the preceding paragraph suggests, society does have standards, but they do not address the realities of the situation. Today's society is overwhelmed with people beset with mental problems; some more serious than others. In either case, our understanding of and response to the Shermain Miles's of the world is inadequate to the need.

In fact her situation reminds me a lot of Jacob Riis's book, How the Other Half Lives (1890), and its accompanying photographs that depicted the lives of the poor and homeless in NYC at that time--a time when there certainly were strict social standards of the kind you refer to and local churches held communities responsible for maintaining those standards, a belief in God was present in every nook and cranny of society and nobody mocked God-fearing believers.

How The Other Half Lives, by Jacob Riis:

I have no other information but what the article states. Just because she was in and out of mental hospitals does not necessarily suggest that she has mental illness. Many criminals in our society go into these institution to DETERMINE if they have mental illness. Perhaps she does, the article does not state that. The article does not state that she was/is homeless as others have suggested.

"...She has also spent significant amounts of times in mental health hospitals and was imprisoned at least 10 times, largely living on the streets when she wasn't behind bars."

I think that pretty well sums up whether she at least WAS homeless. It does not say if she currently IS homeless, though.

Significant time in "mental hospitals" can be as simple as numerous arrests for 72 hour holds. A Police Officer can make that
determination and the homeless drunk or junkie or both can get 3 days of food and a shower before being released back
on the street.

Originally Posted by crouton976

"...She has also spent significant amounts of times in mental health hospitals and was imprisoned at least 10 times, largely living on the streets when she wasn't behind bars."

I think that pretty well sums up whether she at least WAS homeless. It does not say if she currently IS homeless, though.

Point taken. I missed that.

No worries. I miss stuff all the time

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

First, lets stay focused here. When I suggested a comparison of life 75 years back to today, I made no mention of personal opportunity or fortune. That is a much more complex scenario. Go back and read what I wrote. And with that, I'll spit those words you put in my mouth.

No, you simply decided to make a gross simplification of a society being conservative/liberal with its welfare. But me pointing out that that society had some truly horrible aspects all of a sudden makes it a 'complex' matter. Come on, I didn't put any words in your mouth.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

The church will not, can not completely change people. Jesus himself could not do that. And we believe this because we believe in free will. Its up to you to make the change. You can be shown the way but its up to you to walk that path.

Yet the argument you made was that there is a societal problem with lack of personal responsibility and one of the main reasons is the church being a victim. I simply find it ridiculous calling one of the most privileged institution in this country a victim of the society.
I thought Jesus' attitude towards the fairly oppressive government at the time was "do diligently all your duties (e.g. pay your taxes) and don't worry much about them". Not quite the attitude I see from the church or the majority of its members. But again, it may be simply my poor understanding of what christianity is about.

Seems many of you missed this part of the article..

"Miles was imprisoned in Lincoln, Ill., due to a possible parole violation on a 2010 conviction for robbing a 75-year-old at knifepoint, the paper reports."

"who was using the alias Charmane Boone at the time-- "has a history of pulling a knife and holding it to people's necks."


The only thing broken is that somebody hasn't put this rabid dog down yet...

Oh wait "A Chicago woman" that explains it all now

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Seems many of you missed this part of the article..

"Miles was imprisoned in Lincoln, Ill., due to a possible parole violation on a 2010 conviction for robbing a 75-year-old at knifepoint, the paper reports."

"who was using the alias Charmane Boone at the time-- "has a history of pulling a knife and holding it to people's necks."


The only thing broken is that somebody hasn't put this rabid dog down yet...

Oh wait "A Chicago woman" that explains it all now

See what I mean, OCDshaver? I miss things all the time

After reading that and having further info, I'm certainly inclined to agree with you Glen... It's time to take Old Yeller out back, IMO.


***Edit: I retract my earlier statement of not knowing how many convictions she had:

"Through the years, she has also been arrested for burglary, assault, drug possession and public indecency and convicted on 73 separate occasions."

This is just further evidence of me missing things.