• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Tyrant in Georgia

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,038
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Travesty of Justice: Judge Amanda Williams, Glynn County, GA

Our legal system is about fairness first and foremost. Punishment is always secondary and is never to be given with a heavy hand, lest the very system designed to protect us becomes foreboding. When the public loses confidence in the basic fairness of our legal system, the ideals of liberty are mocked.

I listened tonight to an episode of This American Life on my local NPR station. The piece featured Judge Amanda Williams, the director of the Drug Court in Glynn and Camden Counties in GA. The segment was titled Very Tough Love, but it should have been named The Most Unfair Court in the Nation.

I could type my thoughts on this judge and the tyrannical means by which she runs her court. I could say how grossly unfair she treats the people who come before her. I could even say how I believe she is unfit to serve on the bench. But I won't. (If you want to read what others are saying about this judge, try this link.)
Click to expand...
 
What is this travesty of which you speak ?

If you are going to start a thread, a synopsis would be nice, instead of forcing us to listen to the whole program, to find out what's going on..
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
What is this travesty of which you speak ?

If you are going to start a thread, a synopsis would be nice, instead of forcing us to listen to the whole program, to find out what's going on..
Click to expand...

I kind of thought the same, which is why I subscribed to this thread, in order that someone more helpfully post a synopsis. I didn't feel like listening to it. lol.
 
Nihilianth said:
I kind of thought the same, which is why I subscribed to this thread, in order that someone more helpfully post a synopsis. I didn't feel like listening to it. lol.
Click to expand...

Helpfully, there's a synopsis at the link:

"Part One.
Ira reports from Glynn County Georgia on Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams and how she runs the drug courts in Glynn, Camden and Wayne counties. We hear the story of Lindsey Dills, who forges two checks on her parents' checking account when she's 17, one for $40 and one for $60, and ends up in drug court for five and a half years, including 14 months behind bars, and then she serves another five years after that—six months of it in Arrendale State Prison, the other four and a half on probation. The average drug court program in the U.S. lasts 15 months. But one main way that Judge Williams' drug court is different from most is how punitive it is. Such long jail sentences are contrary to the philosophy of drug court, as well as the guidelines of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. For violating drug court rules, Lindsey not only does jail terms of 51 days, 90 days and 104 days, Judge Williams sends her on what she calls an "indefinite sentence," where she did not specify when Lindsey would get out. (30 minutes)

Part Two.
We hear about how Brandi Byrd and many other offenders end up in Judge Williams' drug court. One reason drug courts were created was to save money by incarcerating fewer people. But in Judge Williams' program, people like Brandi end up in drug court—at a cost of $350 per month—who would've simply gotten probation in most other Georgia counties. When offenders like Brandi are kicked out of the program—and half of participants in Judge Williams' drug court program don't successfully complete it—they go into detention, at a cost of $17,000 per year. Brandi did two years.

We also hear how one model drug court participant, Charlie McCullough, was treated by Judge Williams. (25 minutes)"
 
jiggeryqua said:
Helpfully, there's a synopsis at the link:

"Part One.
Ira reports from Glynn County Georgia on Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams and how she runs the drug courts in Glynn, Camden and Wayne counties. We hear the story of Lindsey Dills, who forges two checks on her parents' checking account when she's 17, one for $40 and one for $60, and ends up in drug court for five and a half years, including 14 months behind bars, and then she serves another five years after that—six months of it in Arrendale State Prison, the other four and a half on probation. The average drug court program in the U.S. lasts 15 months. But one main way that Judge Williams' drug court is different from most is how punitive it is. Such long jail sentences are contrary to the philosophy of drug court, as well as the guidelines of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. For violating drug court rules, Lindsey not only does jail terms of 51 days, 90 days and 104 days, Judge Williams sends her on what she calls an "indefinite sentence," where she did not specify when Lindsey would get out. (30 minutes)

Part Two.
We hear about how Brandi Byrd and many other offenders end up in Judge Williams' drug court. One reason drug courts were created was to save money by incarcerating fewer people. But in Judge Williams' program, people like Brandi end up in drug court—at a cost of $350 per month—who would've simply gotten probation in most other Georgia counties. When offenders like Brandi are kicked out of the program—and half of participants in Judge Williams' drug court program don't successfully complete it—they go into detention, at a cost of $17,000 per year. Brandi did two years.

We also hear how one model drug court participant, Charlie McCullough, was treated by Judge Williams. (25 minutes)"
Click to expand...

Thanks. That was quite helpful. I have no thoughts on the issue myself, for I don't do any sort of drug. (I used to smoke marijuana, which I seriously think should be legalized anyway, despite me not touching it these days if it were.)
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Sounds like Glynn, Camden and Wayne counties are not a good place to pursue a drug habit ...

P.S. WTF is a " .... model drug court participant " ?
Click to expand...

From context, I'd suppose it's a drug user who co-operates and engages with agencies, services and programmes as instructed by drug court, and who consequently remains drug-free and a productive, responsible member of society.

That's just a guess, mind.

You understand drug court is not supposed to be about punishing people? As is made clear in the podcast, if you hadn't worked it out for yourself, drug addicts are not deterred by the negative effects of their addiction - that's the very nature of addiction. Addicts may lose their homes, their families, their friends and every last shred of self-respect and still take drugs. An angry judge and a prison sentence won't change their behaviour.
 
The synopsis is a good start, but I really recommend listening to the full program to actually hear the interviews and background. There's a lot more information than just that in the synopsis, and it's a lot more powerful if you actually listen to it.

This American Life is probably the best radio program there is IMHO, and this is one of their better episodes.
 
Nihilianth said:
Thanks. That was quite helpful. I have no thoughts on the issue myself, for I don't do any sort of drug. (I used to smoke marijuana, which I seriously think should be legalized anyway, despite me not touching it these days if it were.)
Click to expand...

Well, one of these girls (Brandi Byrd) that ended up in this drug court didn't do any more drugs than you. She had a couple prescription pain pills in her purse that her mother gave her but forgot about and never actually took.
 
Puppycow said:
Well, one of these girls (Brandi Byrd) that ended up in this drug court didn't do any more drugs than you. She had a couple prescription pain pills in her purse that her mother gave her but forgot about and never actually took.
Click to expand...

Phew, really? Well, damn. I would certainly call to have that friggin judge canned in a heartbeat! Even if it were legitimate drug charges, just the sentencing alone should end up with the firing of this judge. It is ridiculous to throw people in jail for drug possession as it is (depending on circumstance, of course.)
 
Puppycow said:
The synopsis is a good start, but I really recommend listening to the full program to actually hear the interviews and background. There's a lot more information than just that in the synopsis, and it's a lot more powerful if you actually listen to it.

This American Life is probably the best radio program there is IMHO, and this is one of their better episodes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I may end up listening to it at some point if I get bored enough. But with two new little ones, I doubt that's gonna happen any time soon....I'm thinking probably over in about the next 18-20 years or so.....:rolleyes:
 
I recall listening to this in my car. My recall is a bit fuzzy on the details but I believe she essentially gave people the choice of drug court or go to jail for as long as she can legally sentence people to jail. Technically there was supposed to be an actual trial should they chose not to do drug court, but she made it clear that should they not choose drug court she would make sure they went to jail.

So naturally they would choose drug court, except that drug court isn't like normal court. By accepting drug court they admit guilt, and from that point on the judge can recommend anything and they have to follow it. First time offender? Too bad because you have to go to a 2 year drug program.

There was one case of a person who thought the program was really good, they were a model for everyone else and helped other people talk about their drug problems while in the program. The person was there for 2 years, never failed a drug test, and was doing really well. Shortly before finishing the program he took a drug test and it came up positive, but he said there had to be something wrong, so he took another 2 tests and both of those came back negative. It was a fluke. When he went before the judge she ignored this, essentially called him a liar about passing his drug test, and sent him back into the program for another 2 years.

Big time abuse of her power. If you don't like it there is nothing you can do. For drug court there is no appealing what she decides.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
I recall listening to this in my car. My recall is a bit fuzzy on the details but I believe she essentially gave people the choice of drug court or go to jail for as long as she can legally sentence people to jail. Technically there was supposed to be an actual trial should they chose not to do drug court, but she made it clear that should they not choose drug court she would make sure they went to jail.

So naturally they would choose drug court, except that drug court isn't like normal court. By accepting drug court they admit guilt, and from that point on the judge can recommend anything and they have to follow it. First time offender? Too bad because you have to go to a 2 year drug program.

There was one case of a person who thought the program was really good, they were a model for everyone else and helped other people talk about their drug problems while in the program. The person was there for 2 years, never failed a drug test, and was doing really well. Shortly before finishing the program he took a drug test and it came up positive, but he said there had to be something wrong, so he took another 2 tests and both of those came back negative. It was a fluke. When he went before the judge she ignored this, essentially called him a liar about passing his drug test, and sent him back into the program for another 2 years.

Big time abuse of her power. If you don't like it there is nothing you can do. For drug court there is no appealing what she decides.
Click to expand...

Uh yeah. Sounds pretty damned unconstitutional. I am VERY surprised there were no lawsuits yet against her court. No way can a judge say ANYTHING to the tune of "if you do not choose drug court, I will make sure you end up in jail." Ah-uh. That is NOT how it works woman. If a person pleads not guilty, you must conduct a trial accordingly. Judges are not supposed to comment about "what they will do," before trial ever even commences. That is conduct unbecoming.

How the hell is she still on the bench? Not only should be be sued, fined, fired, but also be debarred, never again allowed to step foot in a courtroom as a judge, lawyer, prosecutor, what have you.
 
She also has a habit of sentencing people to "indefinite" sentences and solitary confinement without any drug treatment or counselling or even NA or AA. Complete isolation.

The first girl was in indefinite solitary confinement when she attempted suicide by slitting her wrists.
 
This whole thing is ridiculous. First off "drug court". I'm firmly of the belief that people should be able stuff anything they want up their veins without my or your permission.

Arresting people for drugs causes more problems than the drugs themselves. Does any skeptic actually disagree with that statement?
 
NewtonTrino said:
This whole thing is ridiculous. First off "drug court". I'm firmly of the belief that people should be able stuff anything they want up their veins without my or your permission.

Arresting people for drugs causes more problems than the drugs themselves. Does any skeptic actually disagree with that statement?
Click to expand...

Ummm...NO! Not "anything."

The problem is with the newest so-called "designer" drugs. Now, I don't have a problem with marijuana, shrooms, peyote or any other naturally-occurring drugs. The designed drugs, however, are incredibly dangerous. We should do what we can (as long as we don't bankrupt the nation) to keeping as much of the really crazy designer crap off the streets as possible.

But that's a digression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom