Learn english or go to jail??

[hydrodamoper]

Just wondering what everyone else's opinion of this article were....
JUDGE PETER PAUL Olszewski Jr.’s sentencing of four Spanish-speaking men earlier this week raises all sorts of questions, mainly about the judge’s motivations.
Here’s a recap.
Four young men, all of whom needed translators, appeared in court to plead guilty to criminal conspiracy to commit robbery. The Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas judge sentenced each of them to four to 24 months in county prison, but paroled three of the quartet because they already had served at least four months.
Then Olszewski took the unusual step of dictating that, in order to avoid serving the full two years, the parolees must learn English, earn high school-equivalency diplomas and, within 30 days of their release, get full-time jobs.
The defendants also must return to the court in one year to take an English test, according to the order. “If they don’t pass, they’re going in for the 24 (months),” Olszewski said.
Olszewski told a news reporter that he hadn’t planned on imposing a language condition, but was struck by the idea when he entered the courtroom and saw the translators. “Do you think we are going to supply you with a translator all of your life?” he asked the defendants.
He said the parties can ask him to reconsider the ruling within 10 days.
Fully aware of the controversy it might stir, Olszewski tried to frame his sentencing as an act of benevolence. It’s in the defendants’ best interests to further their educations and hold down jobs, he suggested. The judge, to his credit, has helped other defendants get work through an area employment agency.

 

[geoj]

One language will unit us as one people.
Read history and this is well doc.

 

[flpriest]

Good for the Judge! I wish we had more like him! I hope his sentence sticks.

 

[ruaround]

agree 100% with flpriest!!!
this message is getting rather annoying and should be illegal: para hablar en espanol a prima el numero nueve

 

[jmick]

I wonder what the judge would have done if they had been German, Russian, Polish or any other white non English speaking immigrants?

 

[spiderwoman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2540910
I wonder what the judge would have done if they had been German, Russian, Polish or any other white non English speaking immigrants?
I hope the same. I'm an immigrant to this country and here legally. If you wish to move to the US, you should speak the language.

 

[jon321]

I think the necessity of speaking our language should be base on your use to society. If you are able to keep a full time job and support yourself and your family, it shouldnt matter what language you speak. I dont know what its like in America, but in Canada Chinese restaurant owners that dont speak a word of English are a dime and dozen and often have thriving businesses.
On the other hand, if your nothing but a burden on our society, the LEAST you can do is learn some elementary english to give yourself a better chance of accomplishing something useful.
Jon

 

[reefraff]

Great idea. I just hope some do-gooder group doesn't step in and appeal it. These guys will be way better off in the long run if the comply with the order. What I don't understand is how are these guys legal if they don't speak english? I do believe that is a condition of citizenship.
You'd be amazed what the interpreters cost. I don't think anyone should be allowed to immigrate here unless they have a basic understanding of english. Between interpreters required at both courts and hospitals, Bilingual education and printing for government forms and such we are spending billions each year we really don't need to.

 

[1journeyman]

This story is being spun out of control...
The Judge did not say "English or go to jail". The criminals were given probation instead of jail time for their convictions, IF they learned English in the next year.
The judge could have just sentenced them to jail and waved goodbye.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2541059
This story is being spun out of control...
The Judge did not say "English or go to jail". The criminals were given probation instead of jail time for their convictions, IF they learned English in the next year.
The judge could have just sentenced them to jail and waved goodbye.
You're arguing semantics, the result is the same regardless of how it's worded.
I think this is a sentence that will benefit these defendants. I have always been a proponent of requiring defendants to get their GEDs and maintain employment. The language thing is different and, probably a good thing, but potentially a dangerous precedent. The reservation that I have is where this could lead. When a judge takes it upon himself to "require" conformity to our social values then there is a potential for constitutional violations. Think about if an eccentric judge decides that an alternate to prison would be to go to church, perform a confession, remove cultural clothing, etc. There are some crazy judges out there and I'd hate to see some wacko judge abuse his/her position to "save" a defendant. And what about when the hispanic judge requires a white defendant to learn spanish in order to avoid prison? If you think this is an acceptable practice then you have to be consistent.
JMO

 

[cowfishrule]

Originally Posted by GeoJ
http:///forum/post/2540863
One language will unit us as one people.
Read history and this is well doc.
yeah.
ask Hitler about that.

 

[pontius]

by pleading guilty, the defendants agree to take the sentence and imposed conditions that the judge gives them. if not, then they'd go to the jury where the sentence would most likely be much harder. they also have an amount of time that they can file a motion to withdraw their plea or ask the judge to reconsider the sentence. but they'd be much better off just to learn english and be done with it.
as for the 'what if a Hispanic judge orders a white person to speak english' question...not even close to being the same thing. these non-english speaking criminals who require an interpreter are costing the taxpayers additional money (the interpreter's cost). so the judge is making an attempt to save taxpayers' money in the future. there is no translater needed for an english speaking defendent in an American court, so there would be no justifiable reason for any judge to order an english speaking person to learn spanish in the US and such an order would be thrown out on appeal.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2541238
by pleading guilty, the defendants agree to take the sentence and imposed conditions that the judge gives them. if not, then they'd go to the jury where the sentence would most likely be much harder. they also have an amount of time that they can file a motion to withdraw their plea or ask the judge to reconsider the sentence. but they'd be much better off just to learn english and be done with it.
as for the 'what if a Hispanic judge orders a white person to speak english' question...not even close to being the same thing. these non-english speaking criminals who require an interpreter are costing the taxpayers additional money (the interpreter's cost). so the judge is making an attempt to save taxpayers' money in the future. there is no translater needed for an english speaking defendent in an American court, so there would be no justifiable reason for any judge to order an english speaking person to learn spanish in the US and such an order would be thrown out on appeal.
You have a few things to learn about the law, but fortunately for you I'll give you a free lesson.

(1) Juries do not determine sentences... they only convict or acquit and the judge still sentences (exception for the decision of capital punishment). (2) Irrespective of whether you believe that there is a "justifiable reason" for a hispanic judge to impose the requirement that someone speaks spanish, you have missed the point here. The question is whether a judge should possess this authority. Very simply, due process and inherent fairness require that if judges have the authority to impose a "learn XYZ language" condition then it doesn't really matter what language you are talking about. Just so you know, if a Court of Appeals upheld this practice to require defendants to learn english then they would likely have to uphold it for other languages/situations. Ain't due process a b---?
Again, it's not the biggest deal in the world in this scenario and it seems most agree with the concept. But the issue remains, do we want our judges to have the authority to impose this type of sentence? Where do we draw the line?

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2541258
You have a few things to learn about the law, but fortunately for you I'll give you a free lesson.

(1) Juries do not determine sentences... they only convict or acquit and the judge still sentences (exception for the decision of capital punishment). (2) Irrespective of whether you believe that there is a "justifiable reason" for a hispanic judge to impose the requirement that someone speaks spanish, you have missed the point here. The question is whether a judge should possess this authority. Very simply, due process and inherent fairness require that if judges have the authority to impose a "learn XYZ language" condition then it doesn't really matter what language you are talking about. Just so you know, if a Court of Appeals upheld this practice to require defendants to learn english then they would likely have to uphold it for other languages/situations. Ain't due process a b---?
Again, it's not the biggest deal in the world in this scenario and it seems most agree with the concept. But the issue remains, do we want our judges to have the authority to impose this type of sentence? Where do we draw the line?
here's a free legal lesson for you....when a defendant turns down, usually multiple times, plea offers to go to jury trial, the sentence is almost ALWAYS harsher than if they take the plea offer to begin with. that's not my opinion, that's a fact. judges are much less lenient when a defendant wastes their time on a trial.
now like I said in my previous post, if they take a plea, they agree to the conditions that the judge sets forth. if they change their mind, they can appeal or file a motion for reconsideration. but it's most of the time not in their best interest to do so.
now what are you asking? why is the judge doing this? most agree that it's a good idea, but why do judges do a lot of things? why do judges often order drug counseling for offenses that have nothing to do with drugs? I've seen that. I've also seen judges order defendants to write letters of apology to the victim in the case. why? does the letter mean that the defendant is actually sorry for anything? what's the point of a judge ordering public service hours? a judge ordering someone to learn english so the taxpayers don't have to pay a translator money in the future is something that actually makes sense. a hispanic judge ordering an english speaking citizen to learn spanish does not make sense and would probably not hold up on appeal. and in most places in the US, the community would be so outraged that the judge would likely be looking for a new line of work in short order.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2541107
You're arguing semantics, the result is the same regardless of how it's worded.
I think this is a sentence that will benefit these defendants. I have always been a proponent of requiring defendants to get their GEDs and maintain employment. The language thing is different and, probably a good thing, but potentially a dangerous precedent. The reservation that I have is where this could lead. When a judge takes it upon himself to "require" conformity to our social values then there is a potential for constitutional violations. Think about if an eccentric judge decides that an alternate to prison would be to go to church, perform a confession, remove cultural clothing, etc. There are some crazy judges out there and I'd hate to see some wacko judge abuse his/her position to "save" a defendant. And what about when the hispanic judge requires a white defendant to learn spanish in order to avoid prison? If you think this is an acceptable practice then you have to be consistent.
JMO

I haven't done any research on the judge or the story. But if you like I requiring defendants to get their GEDs and maintain employment. Then you could easily argue that learning the main language of country you are living easily fits into the argument for continuing education and maintaining employment. My grandfather does not speak english very well, and we on a regular basis translate for him. He preached to his children to learn engish and speak without an accent. After I graduated from college, he told me "Ruben, you speak english and you have an education, now you can do anything."
Excellent communication is invaluable when it comes to success in life today. Looking at it this way makes alot of sense, and doesn't set precedent for some of the more absurd situations you've cited.
But if you look at this as a political statement, of the intolerant learn english, anti-immagration crowd then your situations would be supported.
But I do agree the "learn english or go to jail" headline is quite rediculous.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2541258
The question is whether a judge should possess this authority.
Again, it's not the biggest deal in the world in this scenario and it seems most agree with the concept. But the issue remains, do we want our judges to have the authority to impose this type of sentence? Where do we draw the line?
This is the question. And I really don't know, it isn't strictly constructionist that is for sure, but neither is requiring someone to get a GED and consistant employment.
I can't wait to see the ACLU argue that learning english is cruel and unusual.

 

[geoj]

Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
http:///forum/post/2541133
yeah.
ask Hitler about that.
Hitler did not need a language to unit Germany the German people wanted some one to make all there sorrows go away and Hitler promised the people every thing they wanted if they supported him and when he had enough power he made himself dictator. The greed of the people gave Hitler his power not one language.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GeoJ
http:///forum/post/2541399
Hitler did not need a language to unit Germany the German people wanted some one to make all there sorrows go away and Hitler promised the people every thing they wanted if they supported him and when he had enough power he made himself dictator. The greed of the people gave Hitler his power not one language.
I don't know if it was greed as much as it was how screwed up post WWI germany was, they were forced to make repayments after WWI which they were unable to do since they had little infastructure, so they printed money, and the seniorage made their currently worthless so inflation as rampant. Then along came this guy who creates a scapegoat and is hellbent on world domination. And whala you have the WWII.
It really was a total departure from historical precident when after WWII the allied powers decided to rebuild the country we were waring against. Really brilliant on our part. And just goes to show the good that is the United States of America.

 

[oscardeuce]

Remember the good old days when we were the great American Melting pot? Poeple came from all over the world. They learned the language, they learned new traditiotns and kept some old. They "mixed in", and after being stirred, the broth tasted all the better for the additions.
Now, we're more like vinegar and oil dressing. You can shake it all day, and the components do not mix.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2541258
Again, it's not the biggest deal in the world in this scenario and it seems most agree with the concept. But the issue remains, do we want our judges to have the authority to impose this type of sentence? Where do we draw the line?
At the ballot box.